In an explosive statement of claim filed before the Labour Court, Inga Samantha Dyantyi, a former associate at Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (NRFSA), paints a disturbing picture of racialised workplace bullying, silencing tactics, and a corporate culture more invested in protecting reputations than confronting injustice.
What began as a grievance over targeted harassment allegedly evolved into a calculated campaign of retaliation—one that not only ignored the substance of Dyantyi’s concerns but, in a deeply ironic twist, punished her for accessing the very documents that corroborated them.
Whistleblower or wrongdoer? When process is weaponised
At the heart of this case lies a disquieting question: what happens when a grievance becomes the basis for disciplinary action, not against the accused, but the complainant?
According to the statement of claim, Dyantyi filed a formal grievance in May 2024 against senior white male director Jason Whyte, alleging harassment, bullying, and abuse of power.
She referenced emails—stored in the firm’s own shared document management system (iManage)—which she discovered and believed validated her claims.
NRFSA, however, argues that Dyantyi’s access to confidential documents was unauthorised, forming the basis of their disciplinary case against her.
These emails included alleged derogatory remarks about her performance and character, including language which may be interpreted as troubling and racialised. Her statement of claim is replete with documentary evidence.
Instead of addressing the substance of her grievance, the focus swiftly shifted: not to Whyte’s conduct, but to how Dyantyi obtained the emails.
This pivot conveniently redirected attention from the workplace conditions she had bravely challenged to the perceived impropriety of her accessing documents housed on a supposedly confidential, yet publicly accessible, platform.
An ‘investigation’ that never was
Despite undertaking an internal investigation into Dyantyi’s grievance, NRFSA declined to share the final report with her, citing confidentiality.
When eventually given verbal feedback, Dyantyi was told the allegations were unfounded.
But the meeting, rather than being a neutral HR debriefing, reportedly devolved into personal attacks and threats of disciplinary action for “unauthorised access”—a charge that had never been raised prior to her grievance.
The irony is hard to ignore: the employer failed to resolve the actual complaint, yet took swift action against the complainant.
Suspension as punishment, not protection
The timing of Dyantyi’s suspension is equally problematic.
Having already signalled her intent to resign at the end of June 2024, she was placed on precautionary suspension shortly before submitting her resignation letter—allegedly for misconduct related to accessing “confidential” information.
But this move appears less about process and more about optics: a belated attempt to discredit her before her departure.
Moreover, the envisaged disciplinary process itself was never concluded. A hearing scheduled for 16 July 2024 was postponed due to an “incomplete investigation.” This begs the question: why was Dyantyi suspended in the first place if the investigation hadn’t even reached a conclusion?
According to Dyantyi, this sequence of events suggests procedural abuse.
It is a well-established principle in employment law that employees should not resign to avoid disciplinary action—but in this case, it appears the reverse occurred: disciplinary action was triggered because of the imminent resignation.
Unfair discrimination or targeted retaliation?
Dyantyi’s claim is based on unfair discrimination in terms of the Employment Equity Act, rather than constructive dismissal.
She alleges that the discrimination she endured—rooted in race and gender—created a hostile and intolerable work environment that ultimately compelled her to resign.
Her complaint centres on persistent racial harassment, institutional indifference, and procedural manipulation, which she says culminated in emotional harm and professional isolation.
While her resignation was the eventual outcome, it was, according to her claim, the result of sustained discriminatory treatment that made her continued employment untenable.
Her complaint to the CCMA was unresolved at conciliation and is now before the Labour Court. She seeks compensation for emotional harm, lost income, and damage to her dignity.
A firm’s transformation commitments under sccrutiny
This case unfolds against a broader backdrop: Norton Rose Fulbright’s legal challenge to the Legal Sector Code, a transformation charter aimed at promoting racial and gender equity in South Africa’s legal profession.
NRFSA opposition to the LSC was rooted in claims that the targets set by the code—50% black ownership, management, and voting rights—are unrealistic for large law firms.
NRFSA has backed down from its attempt to interdict the Legal Sector Code, following a case management meeting with the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Competition.
The withdrawal demonstrates NRF’s recognition of the need for open engagement with the government and relevant stakeholders in the transformation process.
Dyantyi’s experience, however, if proven, will undoubtedly raise questions about the sincerity of such commitments.
According to her claim, Dyantyi was one of only two black women attorneys in the Cape Town office.
At the time she resigned from the firm, there were no black senior associates or directors. It could not be established whether this remains the status quo at the NRF Cape Town office.
She alleges a systemic pattern of exclusion, unequal treatment, and racialised micro-aggressions—all amplified when she dared to speak out.
Conclusion: Silence is the Enemy of Justice
This is not merely a workplace dispute. It is a test case on how power tends to operate in elite legal circles, how racialised professionals are often met with resistance for standing up, and how procedural tools—like disciplinary hearings and suspensions—can be weaponised against those who rock the boat.
By failing to address the core issues raised, and instead focusing on “confidentiality breaches,” NRFSA has, according to Dyantyi, chosen to protect its own image at the expense of accountability.
The case now heads to court, where it will not only determine the outcome for one young lawyer, but possibly reshape how legal firms respond to allegations of racial discrimination within their own ranks.
Norton Rose Fulbright was contacted for comment and provided the following response:
This matter is currently before the Labour Court and the CCMA and we are defending ourselves in those fora. Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa remains steadfast in our commitment to transformation, diversity, and ensuring a workplace that is free from discrimination and harassment.
HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED UNTENABLE WORKPLACE CIRCUMSTANCES OR DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE?
Let us know by leaving a comment below or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website’s newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
