Humiliation in the Name of Discipline: Court Declares Menstrual Verification Unconstitutional
By Anchor Writer |
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has delivered one of Kenya’s most significant workplace rights decisions, declaring that forcing female employees to undergo “menstrual verification” is unlawful, unconstitutional, inhuman and degrading.
In a judgment delivered on July 23, 2026, Justice Dr. Jacob Gakeri (Pictured below)ruled in favour of Caroline Wanjiku Kangethe, who had sued her employer, Sun Power Products Limited (Brown’s Food Company), after she was allegedly subjected to one of the most intrusive forms of workplace humiliation.
The inspection followed the discovery of a used sanitary pad in a workplace trash bin.
The petitioner told the court that senior officers ordered her and other female employees to undress and expose their undergarments inside a toilet so that management could identify who among them was menstruating.
The court found that the practice amounted to an unconstitutional invasion of women’s bodily privacy.
Justice Gakeri declared that the respondent’s conduct in subjecting the petitioner to menstrual verification was “unlawful, unconstitutional, inhuman, degrading and a violation of the Constitution.”
The judge further held that the employer violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights to human dignity, privacy, fair treatment and fair labour practices.
The court awarded the petitioner KSh1 million in damages for violation of her constitutional rights together with the costs of the suit.
The judgment sends a powerful message that constitutional rights do not end when an employee reports to work and may well create a beeline to court for women subjected to the inspection ordeal to seek compensation.
The judge said an employer may investigate workplace misconduct but, investigations must remain within the boundaries established by the Constitution.
Justice Gakeri drew that constitutional line by holding that an employer cannot strip employees of their dignity in pursuit of discipline.
The decision recognises that menstruation is among the most intimate aspects of a woman’s private life.
Compelling women to reveal whether they are menstruating is not merely embarrassing. It constitutes an assault on personal autonomy, bodily integrity and privacy.
That protection does not depend on whether one is an employee or employer.
The judgment is equally significant because it reminds employers that managerial authority has constitutional limits.
The court did not question the employer’s right to maintain workplace hygiene or discipline.
Instead, it found fault with the method adopted.
An employer cannot investigate misconduct by requiring workers to expose intimate parts of their bodies.
The decision effectively tells employers that disciplinary procedures must respect constitutional rights even where legitimate workplace concerns exist.
Although the petitioner won the constitutional claim, the court declined several other prayers.
Justice Gakeri held that the evidence did not establish discrimination.
The court also rejected the claim for false imprisonment because the petitioner was not physically confined and was free to leave the inspection queue.
Similarly, the judge declined claims for constructive dismissal, aggravated damages and exemplary damages.
The court also refused to compel the employer to formulate workplace policies, observing that such supervision was not the court’s role.
The prayer for a written apology was equally declined.
These findings demonstrate that the court carefully separated proven constitutional violations from claims that were unsupported by the available evidence.
A precedent for every Kenyan workplace
Beyond the parties involved, the judgment establishes an important constitutional precedent.
Many workplaces have internal disciplinary procedures. This decision makes it clear that no internal policy can override the Constitution.
Employers must devise investigative methods that respect privacy, dignity and equality.
For women employees especially, the ruling recognises that menstrual health is deeply personal and cannot become the subject of compulsory physical inspection.
The decision also reinforces Kenya’s commitment to international human rights principles protecting women against degrading treatment in the workplace.
As more employers adopt workplace surveillance, searches and disciplinary mechanisms, this judgment serves as an important reminder that constitutional rights travel with every employee into the workplace.
The Constitution does not stop at the factory gate, the office entrance or the staff changing room.
It protects every worker’s dignity, every day.
This judgment is likely to become one of the leading Employment and Labour Relations Court authorities on workplace dignity, privacy and the constitutional protection of women against degrading treatment.
Stay Anchored
