Written by: Catie Whittier
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v BCGSEU (1999)
Neurtal Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3
Facts:
A woman named Tawney Meiorin was hired as a forest firefighter by the Provincial Government of British Columbia. Despite performing her job effectively, she was dismissed three years later when the government introduced a new set of fitness tests for forest firefighters. She successfully passed three of the tests but failed the fourth, a 2.5-kilometre run designed to measure aerobic fitness. She exceeded the required time by 49.4 seconds, ultimately failing the test overall. She challenged this employment requirement in court, arguing that the test was unfairly biased against women.
Legal issue: Did the fitness test constitute gender discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and British Columbia’s Human Rights Code?
Rights at stake:
Section 15 - every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.
Section 28 - Gender equality rights
The aerobic fitness test violated section 15 and section 28 because women, on average, have lower aerobic capacity than men, due to biological differences. As a result, more women failed the test than men, even though they were otherwise fully capable of doing the job.
The following provisions of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, are at issue on this appeal:
Discrimination in employment:
Section 13(1) generally prohibits discriminating “against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment”.
13 (1) A person must not:
(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or
(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment
Ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that workplace standards must accommodate gender differences unless proven necessary for the job. It was declared unconstitutional for the law to permit termination of a woman’s employment for failing a physical test designed for men. The Court ruled in favor of Meiorin, stating that the test was discriminatory in several ways: (1) the aerobic standard was not necessary for effective job performance; (2) women are biologically different from men in aerobic capacity, meaning the that the test was discriminatory in nature, unfairly disadvantaging women; (3) the government failed to prove that less discriminatory alternatives would not be equally effective.
Interest groups at play:
Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada, in coalition with DisAbled Women’s Network Canada (DAWN) and Canadian Labour Congress. LEAF played a crucial role in shaping the argument in the Meiorin case by emphasizing the need to address systemic discrimination in employment practices. LEAF argued that workplace standards are often based on historical male norms, rather than objective job requirements. LEAF advocated for a clear legal framework to determine whether a discriminatory employment practice could be justified. This led to the creation of the Meiorin test.
Meiorin test:
This case led to the development of a three-step test, requiring employers to ensure job requirements do not indirectly discriminate against women. The test was designed to determine whether a workplace standard is legitimate or discriminatory. Employers must prove that:
The standard is adopted for a legitimate work-related purpose.
The standard was adopted in good faith (i.e., not to intentionally discriminate).
The standard is reasonably necessary to perform the job and that there are no alternative accommodations without causing undue hardship.
Employers must accommodate gender differences in job requirements unless they can prove accommodation is impossible without serious consequences.
Broader societal impacts of employment gender discrimination:
When women face additional barriers for certain jobs, such as firefighting, policing, military, engineering), it reinforces the stereotype that they are physically or mentally incapable of those roles. This discourages women from pursuing careers in physically demanding, male-dominated fields and encourages a "men's jobs vs. women's jobs" mentality. Women who do get hired may be seen as less competent or unqualified. This can lead to sexism, harassment, and fewer promotion opportunities. If employment tests favor men, it perpetuates the idea that some jobs are only for men and other jobs are only for women. This slows down societal progress toward workplace gender equality.
Legal precedence and Women’s Rights in the Workplace:
This case set an important legal precedent for cases involving gender discrimination in the workplace. Employers must accommodate gender differences when setting job requirements. Standardized employment tests can be challenged if they disproportionately exclude women. This case resulted in strengthened protections for women in physically demanding jobs like firefighting, policing, and the military. The abolishment of the aerobic test was necessary to promote more inclusive hiring and workplace policies, especially in male-dominated fields. The three-step test played a significant role in preventing gender discrimination by shifting the burden to employers to prove why a policy is necessary rather than forcing employees to prove discrimination. Honouring the section 13(1) provisions of the British Columbia Human Rights Code set women at a level playing field as men, ensuring a more progressive labour market that considers both men and women equally!
Comments