## Facts

- British Columbia adopted mandatory fitness standards for forest firefighters, including an aerobic test requiring a 2.5 km run in 11 minutes.
- Tawney Meiorin, a female forest firefighter with several years of satisfactory performance, failed the aerobic standard four times and was dismissed.
- Evidence showed physiological differences mean most women have lower aerobic capacity than most men and many cannot train to meet the required level.
- Evidence also indicated no credible proof that the required aerobic level was necessary for safe and efficient performance of forest firefighting by either men or women.
- The union grieved the dismissal, alleging the standard had an adverse discriminatory effect on women and that Meiorin could perform the job safely despite failing the test.

## Issues

1. Whether the aerobic fitness standard constituted discrimination based on sex under British Columbia human rights legislation.
2. If discriminatory, whether the employer proved the standard was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).
3. What analytical framework should govern justification of discriminatory workplace standards, including whether separate tracks for direct and adverse-effect discrimination should continue.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the union’s appeal and restored the arbitrator’s decision.
- The Court held the aerobic standard was discriminatory because it adversely affected women and was not shown to be necessary for safe and efficient job performance.
- The Court held the employer failed to justify the standard as a BFOR.
- Meiorin was reinstated.
- The Court replaced the prior bifurcated approach with a unified three-part test for BFOR justification.

## Legal Principles

- A workplace standard that is neutral on its face may still be discriminatory if it has an adverse effect on a protected group.
- Discriminatory standards are justified as a BFOR only if the employer proves:
  - the standard was adopted for a purpose rationally connected to job performance;
  - the employer adopted the standard in an honest and good-faith belief it was necessary for that purpose; and
  - the standard is reasonably necessary, meaning the employer cannot accommodate affected employees without undue hardship.
- The analysis should focus on the effects of the standard and on barrier removal; accommodation is part of defining a legitimate job requirement, not a secondary step after a rule is set.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated the firefighter aerobic standard as unjustified adverse-effect discrimination and established a unified BFOR framework requiring employers to build and assess job standards through accommodation to the point of undue hardship.


British Columbia (Pub. Serv. Emp. Rels. Comm’n) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 (Can. 1999)