Reference no: EM133452307

Case Study: The University of Victoria scientists who designed the tests argued that most women could reach the standard, although they would have to work harder than most men to do so. Female firefighters said they had to train year-round to pass the test, but they took this as a personal responsibility and as the cost of qualifying for the job. Their safety, as well as that of their colleagues and the public, depends on their strength and endurance. The B.C. Ministry of Forests spokeswoman suggested that lowering the standards would be a mistake: "Already male firefighters are asking if blazes will be designated as 'guy' fires and 'girl' fires. We want the fittest people."
Questions:
1- Did the standards result in safer and more effective firefighting crews, or were they inadvertently keeping women out of a traditionally male job?
2- Was this a BFOR? The ministry was challenged on the basis of sex discrimination. What did the Supreme Court rule, and what was its reasoning?
3-Female applicants had the chance to train and try the test at B.C. university campuses. Was this special preparation discriminatory?
4- Did the changes made fix the underlying problems? Explain.