Hooker Sues Pimp “I Was Sacked for Refusing to Give Head”

A court has ruled that a prostitute will be able to take legal action against her pimp for sacking her for refusing to perform oral sex on a client, despite prostitution itself being illegal.

The prostitute was told by the South African Labour Appeal Court that she would be able to seek redress after she lost her job at a massage parlour, in spite of the fact her work was completely illegal.

She is said to have been sacked for refusing to perform oral sex, letting her boyfriend visit her room, picking and choosing her clients, and for failing to secure enough johns.

She claims she has the right to refuse sexual acts to clients at her own discretion:

“Irrespective of the work I do, it’s my choice. When I fall in love, I want to say, here is something special I have to offer you.”

She inexplicably explains fellatio after sex is like being “a legal secretary and your boss asks you to make him a cup of tea. Of course you would be offended.”

Ruling on the case, the judge said that “the fact that prostitution is rendered illegal does not destroy all the constitutional protection which may be enjoyed by someone as an appellant, were they not to be a sex worker.”

However, this only pertains to the court being able to hear the case – whether the employers of prostitutes have the right to insist they actually do the work they were hired for is another matter.

It would appear if illegality is no barrier to labour law, then drug dealers and hitmen must also be given protection, and unsurprisingly a lawyer is ready to argue that this is in fact the case:

“You can’t distinguish between different kinds of illegal work.

The constitutional protection afforded by Section 23 (1) applies to everyone in an employment relationship, including, for example, a drug dealer in an employment relationship with someone he reports to.”