Allegations that sexual harassment and racist slurs created an intolerable work environment will be heard in the Johannesburg High Court on August 2 when former Unisa Professor Margaret Orr launches her action against the university’s chairperson of council, McCaps Motimele.
Orr is bringing an action based on the alleged violation of her rights to physical integrity, dignity, self-esteem, privacy, peace of mind and equality, based on the Constitution and the common law. She also alleges that Motimele defamed her in violation of her right to her good name and reputation.
Orr’s particulars of claim allege that her troubles at Unisa began at a council bosberaad in January 2000. There Motimele ”made crude comments of a sexual nature, often revolving around the apocryphal sexual prowess and habits of black men, in the presence of council members including [Orr]”, the former English professor’s court papers state.
Motimele’s answering plea denies all Orr’s specific claims regarding sexual harassment.
At the same bosberaad, Motimele asked Orr to pour him a drink, Orr’s particulars claim.
”She did so but passed him the mixer to pour himself. He complained that white women did not have any tender loving care and did not know how to make men feel special. She replied that she had those skills but reserved them for specific people and selected occasions.”
Orr was at this time a full professor, a member of Unisa’s council, senate and Institutional Forum, the chairperson of the university’s Academic and Professional Staff Association, and the coordinator of the Job Evaluation and Performance Appraisal Project. Motimele is an advocate in private practice.
At the bosberaad, Motimele allegedly ”ordered three alcoholic drinks, placed them in front of [Orr] and told her that she could not go to bed until she had finished them”, Orr’s papers claim. ”When she expressed reluctance to consume more alcohol, he criticised her. He continued to keep track of her consumption of the drinks and to urge her to finish them. When his attention was distracted, she left. He berated her the following morning for ‘leaving me in the lurch’.”
Motimele’s plea says he ”jokingly told the bartender to bring two drinks for [Orr] when [she] ordered drinks, as one drink was not enough for her”, but denies the other allegations about this occasion.
A month later, according to Orr’s particulars, she mentioned to a colleague at a council lunch to celebrate then vice-chancellor Antony Melck’s birthday that the best way of acquiring a second language ”was to fall in love with a speaker of that language. [Motimele] overheard the comment, turned to [Orr] and said that ‘I offer myself as a volunteer.”’ Motimele denies this.
At the same lunch, Motimele ”sought out [Orr] for private conversation. He broached with her the possibility of a closer relationship between them. He suggested that they meet on an informal basis to explore that possibility. He mentioned in the course of this conversation that many top management positions would become vacant at Unisa during the year.” Motimele denies these allegations.
This council lunch was also the occasion when, Orr claims, Motimele told her ”apropos of nothing that he would love to see her cry ‘like a little girl’. He asked her whether she had ever seen her colleague Professor Annel van Aswegen cry and mentioned that he had reduced her to tears.”
Motimele’s plea denies this, but admits that ”on another occasion he might have told [Orr] that Professor van Aswegen had been reduced to tears at two meetings where [Motimele] was present; however, he did not tell [Orr] that he was the cause of her tears”.
At the lunch, Orr claims she ”asked [Motimele] how his wife felt about friendships of the kind he suggested. He said that if his wife knew about it, she would be upset, but that black men did not believe in imposing such knowledge on their wives. He added that [Orr] would also find him ‘very accommodating of husbands’. He explained that black men believed that it was better to live out their impulses elsewhere than to take their stresses and frustrations home.”
Motimele’s plea denies that this conversation took place.
Orr claims that Motimele ”persisted in his suggestion that they should arrange to meet informally”. When Orr said she would have to check her diary and asked if they should meet at his office or hers, ”he scoffed and said that he was trying very hard to get past the wall she was erecting”. Motimele denies this.
Motimele allegedly ”asked [Orr] why she kept deflecting the conversation and kept trying ‘to play the professor’. [Orr] responded that she felt more comfortable on professional ground.” Motimele denies these allegations.
When they were then joined by two senior members of Unisa’s management, Motimele ”introduced topics of conversation that were explicitly salacious such as women’s rights to orgasm and the training black men received in clitoral stimulation”. Motimele’s plea says that ”a serious discussion about women’s rights and oppression, particularly in Islamic states, did take place in the presence of a number of people”, including the two senior Unisa officials.
Van Aswegen then joined the conversation, Orr claims, and a discussion about a forthcoming bosberaad ensued. Motimele ”participated in comments made about the enticing possibilities of interleading doors between bedrooms at the bosberaad. [Orr] asked him and the other men present to raise the discussion to a level above their navels.” Motimele’s plea admits that a conversation about the bosberaad occurred but denies the other allegations.
Orr claims that when she left the lunch, Motimele ”escorted her to the lift. At the lift, he embraced and forcibly kissed her on the neck, cheek and mouth. [Orr] was disconcerted and taken aback. They separated but he again came back, took her face in his hands and kissed her on the mouth in a sexually explicit way by thrusting his tongue into her mouth.
”When she recoiled, he said that ‘you kiss like a standard five girl’. She responded that ‘I do friendship and I may even do some flirting but I don’t do fucking’. He laughed and said that it ‘all depends on how you define it’. On parting he told her to ‘get my cell number from Committee Services and call me in 24 hours’.”
Motimele admits that he ”escorted [Orr] to the lift, where he and [Orr] exchanged compliments for the successful birthday lunch, after which they hugged each other in their usual way”. His plea denies the other allegations about this encounter.
Orr says she met Melck in February 2000, gave him a written statement about the events at the council’s bosberaad, ”expressed her anger, frustration and despair about [Motimele’s] conduct, said that she no longer felt safe on council and that she could see no other way to deal with it than resign”. Her particulars refer to a note she sent to Motimele requesting that ”our interactions in future remain strictly collegial and professional”. Motimele’s plea admits receipt of the note.
On February 24 2000, Orr resigned from the council ”to escape [Motimele’s] harassment”. In April that year, Motimele summoned Orr to his office ”on the pretext that he wanted to discuss her resignation from council … When they met, they hugged as was his custom. When she pulled away, he said, ‘No, a little longer.’ She endured it because she was too scared to resist.” Motimele’s plea states that they ”hugged in their customary manner”, but denies the other allegations about this encounter.
In June 2000 Motimele ”instigated and assisted the organisers of a demonstration at Unisa”, Orr claims.
”The demonstrators accused [Orr] of being a ‘racist bitch’ opposed to transformation,” and presented a memorandum to Melck.
The memorandum, which is included as an annexure to Orr’s particulars of claim, says among other things that her complaints of sexual harassment are ”racist charges that cannot be substantiated”; that ”this white woman has shamelessly displayed her willingness to be used in the quest to intimidate and destroy progressive black people within the institution”; and that Orr is ”a white woman [employed] as a ploy and a bait”.
Motimele’s plea denies that he ”instigated and assisted” the organisers of the demonstration.
”As a result of [Motimele’s] conduct towards her, [Orr] felt vulnerable, exposed and stigmatised, and increasingly withdrew from participation in university affairs,” her court papers state. She resigned from the senate and the Institutional Forum in August 2000.
In November, Orr’s application for a vice-principalship was considered by a selection committee that Motimele chaired. Orr’s attorneys had written to Motimele demanding that he recuse himself from any process involving a consideration of Orr’s application. In the event Motimele remained present during the committee’s consideration of applicants. Orr was not shortlisted.
On December 11 2000, Orr resigned from Unisa with effect from February 28 2001 ”because [Motimele’s] conduct had made her continued employment with Unisa intolerable”, her particulars claim. She ”has been and continues to be severely traumatised” and her ”career at Unisa has been destroyed”.