“Equality Court Dismisses Canteen Couple’s Discrimination Case Over ‘Sif’ Slur After Cockroach Incident”

by Hope Ngobeni

image source

A couple running a canteen at Medipost Pharmacy in Pretoria has had their case dismissed by the Equality Court, after they alleged that they were the victims of hate speech and discrimination. Louis and Johannes Arpin-Scholtz filed a complaint against the pharmacy’s landlord, Atlast Kenako Chemicals, and its representative, Scheepers, after an incident in March 2022, when a customer reportedly found a cockroach in their stew. Following this complaint, the couple’s contract to operate the canteen came up for renewal, and tensions escalated during a meeting about the contract. In that meeting, Scheepers allegedly referred to the couple as “sif” – an Afrikaans term meaning “dirty” or “disgusting” – which the Arpin-Scholtzs contended was not only an insult to their hygiene practices but also a derogatory remark aimed at their sexuality.

The couple, both homosexual, argued that the use of the word “sif” was a form of hate speech, associating it with derogatory slurs used against the LGBTQ+ community, such as “moffie” or “queer.” They claimed that the term’s use was not only a personal insult but also contributed to their inability to secure the renewal of their canteen contract, causing them significant financial and emotional harm. The couple sought damages amounting to R150,000 for the hurt caused by the remarks, and an additional R5.5 million for the loss of their business opportunity. Furthermore, they demanded compensation for the breach of contract by Medipost, alleging that the company’s failure to extend their contract caused them considerable hardship.

However, in her ruling, Judge Gcina Malindi dismissed the couple’s claims. She noted that there was no solid evidence that the remarks made by Scheepers were intended to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation. According to the judge, the statement “julle is sif” (you are dirty) was related to the state of cleanliness in the canteen, rather than being a personal attack linked to their sexuality. Furthermore, the judge pointed out that the secretary who was said to have overheard the conversation did not actually confirm hearing the remarks, as the door to the meeting room was closed. The couple had also failed to provide concrete evidence that the alleged discrimination had affected their contract renewal, given that they had operated the canteen without issue for years prior.

Judge Malindi emphasized that there was no indication that the couple had faced discrimination in previous years, or that the failure to renew the contract was based on hostility or intimidation. She also stated that the claims of discrimination were undermined by the lack of evidence showing that Medipost or Scheepers had acted in a way that imposed disadvantage or harm on the couple due to their sexual orientation.

In contrast, the court did uphold Medipost’s counterclaim for unpaid invoices, ordering the couple to pay R92,974.26 for outstanding fees. Despite the dismissal of their hate speech and discrimination allegations, the Arpin-Scholtzs’ case highlights the complexity of proving discrimination in business relationships, particularly when the lines between personal insults and professional disagreements become blurred.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?
-
00:00
00:00
Update Required Flash plugin
-
00:00
00:00