The Canadian Case

As a result of the September 1999 Supreme Court of Canada Meiorin decision, the British Columbia Forest Service was obliged to revise its preemployment (physical fitness) test for wildland firefighters. Changes were made to ensure that the new standard would be job related and have no adverse impact on firefighters based on gender or ethnicity (social group). Subsequently, the pack test and a pump-hose test were selected as the components of the new standard. These changes were implemented for the 2000 fire season for the following reasons: they are job specific; they have been extensively researched and validated as legitimate measures of a person's ability to fight fire; and they do not discriminate or create gender, ethnic, age, or weight barriers.

The British Columbia Forest Service employed about 700 firefighters during the 2000 fire season. Preemployment fitness test results were obtained from 575 of those firefighters. Fifteen percent (88 of 575) were new recruits (firefighters who were hired just before the 2000 fire season). About 7 percent of the firefighters were females. This percentage corresponds to the current gender distribution of wildland firefighters in the British Columbia Forest Service. The large sample also reflects the normal distribution of social groups (first nations, visible majority, visible minority) among British Columbia Forest Service wildland firefighters.

Males had a 98.6 percent pass rate for the pack test and a 99.1 percent pass rate for the pump-hose test. All females passed both tests. The revised preemployment fitness standard for wildland firefighters reflects the minimum standard necessary for the safe and efficient performance of firefighting in British Columbia. The pack and pump-hose tests are job specific and they have been extensively researched and validated as legitimate measures of a person's ability to fight wildland forest fires. The results of these data collected during the 2000 fire season confirm previous findings that the revised preemployment fitness tests do not have a disproportionately negative impact on a gender or social group. Although age and weight have a small association with scores, they do not make a powerful contribution to the variability in mean test scores. (for more information, contact British Columbia Forestry at: steve.bachop@gems5.gov.bc.ca).

This October 2000 presentation addressed the related issues of gender and physical size in the preparation for, and the performance of, emergency response duties.

"Evidence accepted by the arbitrator designated to hear the grievance demonstrated that, owing to physiological differences, most women have a lower aerobic capacity than most men and that, unlike most men, most women cannot increase their aerobic capacity enough with training to meet the aerobic standard." (Supreme Court of Canada on appeal from BC Court of Appeals re: BC Government & Service Employees Union v. Government of the Province of BC, 1999).

Two of the primary factors influencing the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the adverse effect discrimination of a female wildland firefighter involved arguments that:

• Women have a lower aerobic capacity than most men.
• Even with training, most women cannot increase their aerobic capacity enough to meet the aerobic standards.

The precedent-setting decision has far-reaching implications for bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR), particularly those that involve intense physical demands.

It is assumed that valid and reliable BFORs will provide a means of determining whether an individual can meet the demands of the job effectively and efficiently without undue risk of injury. Individuals interested in pursuing employment in emergency response occupations (such as urban or wildland firefighting, or police work) must recognize the physical demands involved in such positions. There is an obvious need to prepare before applying to work in such occupations as well as a need to maintain a level of physical ability while in such a physically demanding position.

The lower aerobic power, strength, and work capacities of women compared to men have been used to argue the discriminatory effect of BFORs. This presentation included a discussion of gender differences in physical capacities and the use of average values to represent the abilities of a specific population. A question that must be considered is whether women are truly at a disadvantage, or whether size (women on average are smaller than males) is the disadvantage. Lowering aerobic BFOR standards for some populations would be likely to force some individuals to work at a much higher percentage of their maximal aerobic power. This will lead to an increase in the rate of fatigue and risk of injury, as well as a reduction in productivity. It is recommended that in some circumstances standards may need to be set higher for smaller individuals.

The argument of poor training responsiveness has also been used in the determination of adverse effect discrimination. The ability of women to improve their physical abilities, specifically aerobic power, and muscular strength and power were discussed. Research from sport studies including competitive and well-trained female athletes provides evidence that with appropriate training most women can enhance their muscular strength, power, and cardiovascular efficiency.

Physically challenging occupations often require absolute capacities and performances. Absolute demands, such as being able to lift and handle heavy equipment place the smaller individual (often female) in a disadvantageous situation. In addition, the externally imposed absolute loads of the protective gear used in firefighting and the energy requirements of such encumbered work will impact job effectiveness. Accommodation for smaller individuals (both male and female) often cannot be made without risk to the employee, the general public, and even the employer. In order to perform effectively under these conditions, a smaller individual may be required to work at an intensity level higher than that of a larger person. The report discussed the impact these additional demands have on the development of fatigue, as well as the determination of valid employment standards.

The report concluded that physical size is probably more of an issue than gender when dealing with difficulties of developing and meeting BFORs. Accommodation related to size differences must include consideration for absolute demands of employment-related tasks. It is possible that physical requirements may need to be altered to take into account the size differences of employees. However, such alterations may lead to an increased level of difficulty in meeting the standards. It must not be presumed that altering standards to accommodate size differences will necessarily mean making them easier to meet. The inability of one individual to complete job requirements may place coworkers in a compromised, risky situation. Ultimately, it is the ability of an employee to meet the physical demands of the occupation in a safe, effective, and appropriate manner that must be considered.

Issues of gender and size in emergency response occupa-tions. Gaul, Katherine, Ph.D., University of Victoria. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology, Canmore, Alberta, October 25 to 28, 2000.

The pack test is used to determine a wildland firefighter's ability to carry out the arduous duties of the job. The test, which replicates a portion of the firefighter's job, requires the same energy expenditure as firefighting (7.5 kilocalories per minute). The pack test has been taken by thousands of individuals in Federal and State agencies in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Even though more than 90 percent of the candidates pass the pack test, the test has been criticized as too difficult, the pack (45 pounds) as too heavy, and the pace (4 miles per hour) as too fast. Smokejumpers carry 110 pounds for 3 miles to qualify for duty. Female U.S. Army recruits have trained to carry 75 pounds at 4.4 miles per hour. Marines routinely carry 75 pounds in awkward Alice packs (similar to rucksacks), even on snowshoes. A recent article in the journal Military Medicine recommends a backpack run test (a 2-mile run with a 66-pound pack) as "a model for a fair and occupationally relevant military fitness test" that eliminates body-size bias, and measures work and health-related components of fitness.

Wildland firefighters are told not to run while taking the pack test. The pack test is a pass or fail test. Running is not necessary to pass the test, and doing so increases the risk of injury. Candidates should be reminded of proper lifting techniques and the need to warm up and stretch before taking the test. They should follow all safety instructions, wear a comfortable pack, hike with an upright posture, and avoid extreme body positions (crouching or leaning). Finally, candidates are told they are free to stop at any time.