Attorney’s R5.7m discrimination claim against Norton Rose fails over CCMA conciliation

An attorney seeking about R5.7 million in compensation and damages from Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa has had her Labour Court case struck off the roll because she did not first refer her unfair discrimination claim for conciliation.

The Labour Court found that Inga Samantha Dyantyi had referred a constructive dismissal dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), but not the separate racial harassment claim on which her court action was based.

Judge R Lagrange upheld the law firm’s special plea, a preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction because the discrimination claim had not been through the required conciliation process.

The judgment, delivered on 30 October, does not determine whether the alleged racial harassment took place. Struck off the roll means the court has removed the claim from its list without ruling on the merits.

Inga Samantha Dyantyi, who worked in the firm’s commercial property department, alleged persistent victimisation, bullying and racial harassment by a Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa director from June 2023.

Image: LinkedIn

Behind the claim

Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc separated from the international Norton Rose Fulbright group on 31 March 2026 and now operates independently as Deneys, according to the group’s website. Dyantyi’s court action was launched in February 2025, before the split.

According to Ndifuna Ukwazi’s website, Dyantyi is now an attorney at its Cape Town law centre and holds a cum laude Master of Laws in constitutional property law from Stellenbosch University.

Dyantyi, who worked in the firm’s commercial property department, alleged persistent victimisation, bullying and racial harassment by a director from June 2023.

According to the pleadings summarised in the judgment, the dispute began when the director reallocated her duties to a pro bono matter and she complained about his conduct.

She then lodged a formal grievance alleging bullying, intimidation and abuse of power. She alleged that the firm’s handling of it, including her suspension, made the working relationship intolerable and resigned with effect from 31 July 2024, claiming constructive dismissal.

The wrong box

On 13 August 2024, she referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, attaching a statement that alleged, among other things, that the director had a history of mistreating young women, particularly Black women. Conciliation took place on 11 September 2024, but the dispute remained unresolved.

In February 2025, she also instituted proceedings in the Labour Court, claiming unfair discrimination in the form of racial harassment.

Norton Rose raised two special pleas challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Its primary argument was that the discrimination dispute had never been referred to or conciliated by the CCMA, as the Employment Equity Act requires.

Dyantyi argued that she had referred both a constructive dismissal and a discrimination dispute, relying on her attached statement and her answer to a question on the referral form about whether she had tried to resolve a discrimination matter internally.

Lagrange rejected that argument.

The judge said section 10 of the Employment Equity Act requires an unfair discrimination dispute to be conciliated by the CCMA before it can go to the Labour Court.

Dyantyi selected constructive dismissal on the referral form, the certificate described the dispute the same way, and allegations of bullying or racial abuse in such a referral did not turn it into a separate unfair discrimination claim, the judge said.

Not like September

The judgment considered the Constitutional Court’s decision in September and Others v CMI Business Enterprise CC, in which unrepresented employees ticked the unfair discrimination box but later pursued a constructive dismissal claim. The court found that issue had been actively raised at conciliation.

Lagrange said Dyantyi’s case was different, with no evidence that a standalone unfair discrimination dispute had been raised, discussed or conciliated. The judge noted that she was an admitted attorney with approximately five years’ experience and that, even if she was not a labour law specialist, identifying the appropriate statutory claim should not have been beyond her ability to research.

Dyantyi acknowledged in her amended statement of claim that she approached the Labour Court because the CCMA had not scheduled her constructive dismissal dispute for arbitration due to an institutional backlog.

The judge said this supported the inference that the discrimination claim was an attempt to pursue a different course of litigation, rather than a dispute she had always intended to pursue separately once conciliation failed.

The court upheld the firm’s first special plea and struck the referral off the roll. The firm’s alternative argument, that the claim was referred outside the 90-day limit, did not need to be decided.