Our thanks to William for this. Excerpts:
However the defence for the forces said that in order to succeed as a dog handler it is vital to be physically fit as tracking criminals over long periods of time in debilitating conditions and then arresting the criminal was especially challenging…
Judge Street said: ‘Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified.’ [J4MB: Didn’t the police forces in question “objectively justify” the test as it stands (as above)? And if not, why not? The influence of senior female police officers, perhaps? So what will happen in a real-life situation where the dogs need to be carried by their handlers for some distance? Will only the male handlers go ahead, while the women – on the same pay as the men, obviously – stay behind and do nothing? If only a female handler – or handlers – are available, will the criminals escape arrest by the simple expedient of crossing ground where the Special Snowflakes would decline to go?]
The judge agreed women were at particular disadvantage compared with men and awarded Miss Carter a total of £14,930 for indirect sex discrimination.