Our recent post which noted a case from New Zealand where a prostitute was awarded damages based upon a claim of sexual harassment by her boss (a brothel owner) was found not to be very controversial by our readers. (In New Zealand prostitution is legal).
Belinda Lester, a London employment lawyer, wrote that:
“It may be a world first but it shouldn’t be seen as a surprising decision. A prostitute may be offering herself for sale, but on clearly defined terms. As it is already established that rape of a prostitute is a crime like any other notwithstanding the nature of her work, then as she is also a worker she is obviously also entitled to exactly the same statutory protections as any other worker.”
Claudia Orr, a Detroit-area employment atttorneysaid that “Even a prostitute can be raped…”
Kimberly Bennetta, an entrepreneur from the Adelaide, Australia area, said:
“I know some people will say that she should expect it in her line of work, but despite what she does for a living should not make any difference. She works and pays taxes like everyone else and should receive respect like anyone else. Although some may see it as not the most desirable job, everyone has their own beliefs and she may see it just the same as working at a bank or in a hotel. Everyone woman and man should be able to go to work and be respected by not only their boss, but their peers as well.”
Johann Scheepers, a commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration in Johannesburg, South Africa, who has become our de facto legal correspondent from South Africa by dint of his many helpful examples of South African law and its comparison to the law of other jurisdictions, discussed an interesting case in which the Court held that: “As sex workers cannot be stripped of the right to be treated with dignity by their clients, it must follow that, in their other relationships namely with their employers, the same protection should hold.”
He wrote:
“In South Africa, the Labour Appeal Court, as far back as 2010, pronounced on the employment rights of sex workers. In ‘Kylie’ v CCMA and others (2010), 31 ILJ 1600 (LAC), the Court held that illegal workers enjoy protection in terms of labour legislation. While the remedial issues must be tailored to meet the specific context of a case, the objects and provisions of labour legislation and the illegality of the work performed, there is nothing which indicates that no form of protection in terms of section 193 of the Labour Relations Act should be available to a sex worker who was unfairly treated within the context of the provisions of the LRA.
The LAC held: “As sex workers cannot be stripped of the right to be treated with dignity by their clients, it must follow that, in their other relationships namely with their employers, the same protection should hold. Once it is recognised that they must be treated with dignity not only by their customers but by their employers, section 23 of the Constitution, which, at its core, protects the dignity of those in an employment relationship, should also be of application.”
In ‘Kylie‘ monetary compensation for a procedurally unfair dismissal had been treated as a solatium [compensation for injured feelings] for the loss by an employee of her right to a fair procedure.”
