- Blowing kisses, hugging colleagues and giving compliments were not shown to be sexual harassment at work.
- The alleged buttock-touching was not found to be intentional sexual conduct.
- The City of Cape Town failed to overturn the disciplinary acquittal of clinic manager Farida Adams
Blowing kisses, hugging a colleague and calling her beautiful were not proved to be sexual harassment. The court also found that the allegation of a clinic manager touching a co-worker’s buttock was not supported by the evidence, Acting Judge AC Oosthuizen ruled.
The judgment, delivered at the Labour Court in Cape Town on 12 August 2026, dismissed the City of Cape Town’s attempt to overturn a disciplinary decision that acquitted Farida Adams of sexual harassment charges brought by fellow employee Tracey Jones.
The case stemmed from alleged conduct at Rocklands Clinic between August 2022 and January 2023.
City sought to overturn acquittal
Adams, a nursing clinic manager for the City of Cape Town, was accused of sexually harassing Jones. The allegations included asking Jones for a kiss, hugging her often, blowing kisses at her, telling her she was beautiful and touching her buttock.
After hearing evidence from both women and other staff members, disciplinary chairperson Stephanie Sirmongpong found Adams not guilty. The city then took the matter to the Labour Court, seeking to have that outcome reviewed and set aside.
Judge Oosthuizen emphasised that the matter before the court was a review, not an appeal. The key issue was whether the disciplinary chairperson’s decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it.
Workplace context became central
The judge said that for conduct to amount to sexual harassment, it must be of a sexual nature and the surrounding circumstances are crucial.
He added that factors like the nature of the touching, which body part was involved, how the complainant reacted, the accused employee’s explanation and workplace customs all had to be considered.
Evidence described a tactile workplace
On the complaint about hugging, other employees testified that staff at the clinic often hugged one another and that this behaviour was seen as normal in their workplace.
Adams admitted to hugging colleagues but said it was meant as a gesture of support and appreciation. The court found her explanation believable and trustworthy.
Judge Oosthuizen concluded that the evidence showed Adams hugged her colleagues often, with no sexual or improper intention, and that her behaviour toward Jones could not be described as sexual in nature.
Blowing kisses found non-sexual
Witnesses also said that Adams sometimes made a kiss-blowing gesture when thanking colleagues for help. One witness described the gesture as a common way staff expressed themselves and said it was not seen as unusual at work.
Adams agreed that she had blown kisses toward Jones from time to time, but denied any sexual intent. “Seen in context, these gestures do not amount to conduct of a sexual nature,” Judge Oosthuizen said. The court found that these gestures did not amount to sexual harassment.
Buttock-touching allegation failed
The most serious claim concerned an incident in January 2023, where Jones said Adams touched her buttock while she was standing at a printer and then left the room giggling. Adams admitted there was contact but denied grabbing or pinching Jones and denied leaving the room laughing. Another employee who was there did not see Adams run out or giggle.
The judge noted that Jones was at first unsure who had touched her and later sent a WhatsApp message suggesting she thought another colleague was responsible. He said this suggested that the contact was fleeting and barely noticeable. The court also took into account the five-month delay before the incident was reported through workplace grievance procedures.
Judge Oosthuizen made a distinction between a fleeting, unintentional brush against the buttock and an intentional pinch or fondle with laughter. “The facts show that what happened was the first, not the second,” he said.
Brief disciplinary ruling still stood
The city argued that the disciplinary chairperson’s written decision was contradictory because it acquitted Adams but also advised her to stop some workplace practices. Judge Oosthuizen agreed the decision was brief and could have been more detailed, especially given the seriousness of harassment allegations.
However, he said the decision made sense when read as a whole. The chairperson had acquitted Adams of the disciplinary charges and simply cautioned her that non-sexual gestures could be misunderstood in future and should be moderated.
No costs order
The Labour Court dismissed the review application and made no order as to costs. Judge Oosthuizen said the City of Cape Town had a duty to actively prevent workplace harassment and was entitled to seek a review of a disciplinary outcome if it genuinely believed it was unreasonable.
The disciplinary acquittal of Farida Adams therefore remains in place.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
