A lawyer who demanded compensation and damages of approximately 5.7 million rand from Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa found that her case in the Labour Court was removed from the register because she failed to obtain prior approval for her unfair discrimination claim.
The Labour Court determined that Inga Samantha Dianti had gone through the dispute resolution process regarding constructive dismissal at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), but she had not filed a separate racial discrimination claim, which formed the basis of her lawsuit.
Judge R Lagrand supported the law firm's special request—a preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction because the discrimination claim did not undergo the required conciliation process. This decision, issued on October 30, does not determine whether the alleged racial persecution took place. The removal of the case from the register means the court withdrew the claim from its list without ruling on the merits.
Reasons for filing the claim
Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc separated from the international group Norton Rose Fulbright on March 31, 2026, and now operates independently as Deneys, according to the group's website. Dianti's lawsuit was initiated in February 2025, before this separation.
According to Ndifuna Ukwazi's website, Dianti is currently a lawyer at a Cape Town law center and holds a Master of Laws in Constitutional Law cum laude from Stellenbosch University.
Dianti, who worked in the firm's commercial property department, alleged continuous instances of harassment, intimidation, and racial abuse by a director starting in June 2023. According to documents presented in the ruling, the dispute began when the director reassigned her duties to a pro bono project, and she complained about his behavior.
Subsequently, she filed a formal complaint accusing him of intimidation and abuse of power. She claimed that the firm's handling of the matter, including her suspension, made the working relationship unbearable, leading her to resign on July 31, 2024, citing constructive dismissal.
Incorrect category
On August 13, 2024, she submitted the unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, attaching a statement alleging, among other things, that the director had a history of mistreating young women, particularly Black women. Conciliation took place on September 11, 2024, but the dispute remained unresolved.
In February 2025, she also commenced proceedings in the Labour Court, seeking compensation for unfair discrimination in the form of racial persecution. Norton Rose raised two special objections, challenging the court's jurisdiction. Their main argument was that the discrimination dispute was never referred to or mediated through the CCMA, as required by the Employment Equity Act.
Dianti argued that she had submitted both the constructive dismissal dispute and the discrimination claim, referencing her attached statement and her response to the inquiry regarding whether she had attempted internal resolution of the discrimination issue. However, Lagrand rejected this argument.
The Judge stated that Section 10 of the Employment Equity Act requires that an unfair discrimination dispute be conciliated by the CCMA before it can be referred to the Labour Court. The Judge noted that Dianti chose constructive dismissal in the referral, and the certificate described the dispute similarly, meaning allegations of intimidation or racial abuse in such a referral do not transform it into a separate unfair discrimination claim.
Not like in September
The decision considered the Constitutional Court ruling in the case of September and Others v CMI Business Enterprise CC, where employees without representation noted the point of unfair discrimination but later filed a constructive dismissal claim. The Court ruled that this issue was actively raised during the conciliation stage.
Lagrand pointed out that Dianti's case differs because there was no evidence that a separate unfair discrimination dispute was raised, discussed, or conciliated. The Judge noted that she is a recognized lawyer with about five years of experience, and that even if she is not a labour law specialist, determining the relevant legislative requirement should not have been beyond her ability to research.
Dianti admitted in her amended claim that she approached the Labour Court because the CCMA had not scheduled her constructive dismissal dispute for arbitration due to institutional backlog. The Judge noted that this confirms the assumption that the discrimination claim was an attempt to pursue a different legal process, rather than a dispute she always intended to pursue separately after conciliation failed.
The court upheld the firm's first special objection and removed the referral from the register. The firm's alternative argument that the claim was filed outside the 90-day period did not require consideration.
