Another case where gender wins over ability

[rwm1273]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10643338/Petite-firearms-officer-wins-sex-discrimination-case-because-gun-was-too-big-for-her-hands.html

[sailor]

Bearcat revolver would be right on

[Au revoir, Gopher]

I think you might be reading too much into that one. If all they needed was a different set of grips to meet the standard then I don't see the problem. If they wanted a different firearm or were complaining that the recoil was too much and should be allowed to shoot a .22LR then I could see your point. Face it, the reverse could easily happen. Some guy with big hands could have a hard time meeting the standard without over sized grips.

ARG

[rwm1273]

It has nothing to do with the gun. The women complained because they can't do the job with the tools provided. Even they had issues with the range and supports used at the range.

Same thing happens here with our fire department. Our safety is less important than a person's right to work any job they choose.

How many men and boys were prevented from joining the army due to flat feet or color blindness. The army felt the lives of the other soldiers was more important than the recruit who didn't meet the standards.

[Wild&Free]

proper tools for the job. all she wanted was safety equipment that fits and a modified grip for her glock.

for all you know rmw she could group her whole mag in under an inch in 15 seconds.

indirect discrimination with no victimization.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

It has nothing to do with the gun. The women complained because they can't do the job with the tools provided. Even they had issues with the range and supports used at the range.

Same thing happens here with our fire department. Our safety is less important than a person's right to work any job they choose.

How many men and boys were prevented from joining the army due to flat feet or color blindness. The army felt the lives of the other soldiers was more important than the recruit who didn't meet the standards.

I agree that everyone should meet the same standard; whoever, from the article:Both officers, who are described as being "petite in stature" and with "small hands", asked on several occasions for a smaller and suitable grip on the weapon when they could not reach the trigger, but this did not happen.

Again, if the only thing keeping them from meeting the standard was the grips then I don't see the problem here. If they wanted a different standard then there is a problem.

ARG

[JULIUS]

I am not sure I agree with the post so far. I was a firearms instructor for several years and there are certainly many people who are not large enough to have the good fortune to be able to pick up any firearm and have it fit them. I have seen other instructors who had the attitude that you have to have the person fit the firearm. unfortunately you are what you are.We can not make our hands grow just to fit the design of a particular gun manufacturer. Fortunately most handguns now come with a large variety of changeable grips that will fit those people with exceptionaly small hands. It sounds like the organization was stuck on the old" one size fits all " mentality and did not try to accomodate this physical limitation. Thank goodness we as hunters are not required to stick to that type of thinking or we would not have any custom guns out there. The reality for any organization ( particularily government) functioning today is that size and gender are limitations that are generally no longer an acceptable reason for dismissal. If the person can do the job in all other aspects then I feel the gun and training equipment should be adjusted to fit them not the other way round. Just my two cents.

[rwm1273]

Again, if the only thing keeping them from meeting the standard was the grips then I don't see the problem here. If they wanted a different standard then there is a problem.

ARG

This may be the case if there was a large grip on the gun, however I suspect that the guns used were standard issue without any modified grips. If their hands were too small to grip the standard gun due to the size of the gun in the first place, then too bad. There is a certain size limitation to the choice of cartridge and size of magazine. You can't make the pistol smaller if it is designed to hold a certain caliber cartridge.

I would expect these two women to have complained even if the department had brought in different grips and they still found the pistol too large. This can be proven by this section of the article:

They also argued that a wooden barricade which was used as a resting place for the firearm was also too large but the tribunal found there was no justification for this.

Bottom line is these women were too small for the job. It would be the same case if they were men complaining about the same thing.

[Wild&Free]

Bottom line is these women were too small for the job. It would be the same case if they were men complaining about the same thing.

or, it could be that if it was a man complaining then he would have been accomadated with proper fitting standard issue gear without having to repeatedly raise the issue.

though I feel most men would be embarrassed to say they can reach the trigger, eek by with marginal results putting everyone in his unit at risk.

[rwm1273]

I think the issue about such articles that disappoints me is that there are many occupations where the standards are lowered to accommodate people, and this puts everyone else at risk, including those who want to be accommodated.

[Wild&Free]

but the standards weren't lowered.

would you be ble to preform wearing protective gear that is too big for you?

just because theyre petite women doesn't mmean theyre not fit enough or not have adequate weapon proficiency enough to do the job they just require properly fitting gear.

like ARG said if they wanted a ssmaller weapon, or a modified test that would be a lowered standard. looks to me like they just want adequate gear to do the test that does not put them at a disadvantage in the test or in the field.

[brownbomber]

I need bigger grips

[rwm1273]

but the standards weren't lowered.

would you be ble to preform wearing protective gear that is too big for you?

just because theyre petite women doesn't mmean theyre not fit enough or not have adequate weapon proficiency enough to do the job they just require properly fitting gear.

like ARG said if they wanted a ssmaller weapon, or a modified test that would be a lowered standard. looks to me like they just want adequate gear to do the test that does not put them at a disadvantage in the test or in the field.

I don't agree, and it is being appealed. Perhaps there is not enough information from the article for any of us to have a clear understanding of the issue. Perhaps I take it as a lowering of standards where as you and ARG don't. However from the article it appeared that the two women even complained about the rest used for target shooting was too large, yet the panel didn't agree.

[Wild&Free]

2 out of 3 complaints though. the rest thing I agree with, any sort. defensive barricade would need to be large enough to protect anyone needing it. the little girls will just have to learn to shoot around the side instead of over the top.

[Okotokian]

It has nothing to do with the gun. The women complained because they can't do the job with the tools provided. Even they had issues with the range and supports used at the range.

Same thing happens here with our fire department. Our safety is less important than a person's right to work any job they choose.
.

Any company has to accomodate special needs unless there is a valid job-related reason not to do so, or it is inordinately expensive.. Having a firearm with smaller grips in no way makes her unable to carry out her job. It has no negative impact at all on public safety. She can still shoot anyone coming over the fence.

Imagine if the police force or army only had uniforms in "men's medium" and if you didn't fit the uniforms you couldn't enlist. No reason for medium. It's just what has always been bought by purchasing. See?

[Big Daddy Badger]

It has nothing to do with the gun. The women complained because they can't do the job with the tools provided. Even they had issues with the range and supports used at the range.

Same thing happens here with our fire department. Our safety is less important than a person's right to work any job they choose.

How many men and boys were prevented from joining the army due to flat feet or color blindness. The army felt the lives of the other soldiers was more important than the recruit who didn't meet the standards.

First of all I acknowldge that the miliary lowered several standards to accomodate women.
In fact they had always held women at a different standard.
When they began integrating them to operational positions the tendency was to lower the standard across the board...presumably so that they could claim that their was no bias.
The results of that bid to improve optics were....mixed.

That said... nobody was ever prevented from serving due to colour blindness as not all trades require perfect colour vision.
Same thing with flat feet... at least in recent times it is essentially a non-issue.

I do not see this case as the lowering of a standard.
I see it as an employer meeting the reasonable needs of an employee so that they can meet the same standard.

Similarly when you were in the military were you or was everyone you knew issued exactly the same size gas mask?
No.
Was everyone issued the same length butt for their rifle?
No.
Did we all wear webbing or uniforms or boots that were the same size?
No.
In industry does everyione wear the same type and size respirator?
No.

This is no diffrent.

Now... if her proficiancy requirements were different that would be a whole other kettle of fish.

[fish gunner]

Why do we have left handed rifles ...bahahahah. sorry non issue in any way why is eye relief ajustable ...

[pseelk]

I need bigger grips

You are a man,No grips for you!:)