Colour blind claim is pie in the sky

The following letter was "Comment of the day" in the Evening Times "Your View" on Saturday August 30 2008:-

Your story (August 27) about graduate Robin Dixon whose application to join the police was rejected because he was colour blind, said he had lost a disability discrimination claim against Strathclyde Police.

And yet he has now won the right to claim sex discrimination on the grounds that colour-blindness affects more men than women.

Who is this man going to claim against? Surely not his parents for passing on a hereditary gene? No, he's going to sue the police, saying it's their fault.

What is the world coming to when claims like this are even given the time of day.

Some jobs, including the police, have stringent medical conditions applied to them because of the work involved.

Find something else to do with your time and our money, Mr Dixon. Police have more important matters to deal with.

Robert Borthwick

Arden

The following response has been submitted by AbsolutelyPC to "Your View" for their consideration.

Dear Sir,

Robert Borthwick raises important points in your "Comment of the Day" letter of 30th August.

He is quite correct in emphasising that, for police recruitment, stringent conditions apply to issues such as medical fitness and eyesight standards. So important are these issues that they are part of Police Regulations laid down by the Scottish Government - and these Regulations state that Mr Dixon and Mr McCullie are both fit to perform the work of an operational police constable.

It must be a matter of great concern to the public served by Strathclyde Police that this force, which exists to uphold the law, is willing, so blatantly and deliberately, to flaunt their own Regulations.

Mr Borthwick also, quite appropriately, raises the question of the use of "our" money. It must be reasonable to ask why Strathclyde Police are so readily willing to use and to risk public money, in efforts designed to block the reasonable course of Justice and Human Rights, when all they needed to do was follow their own Regulations.

The risk to the public purse is not limited to Mr Dixon and Mr McCullie. There are at least 14 others who could be entitled to bring similar actions, some of whom may now be serving police officers with other forces, and every future rejection for the same reasons could result in a future risk to the public purse.

It is a pity that Mr Dixon was never afforded the opportunity to have his claim of Disability heard, since there is an ongoing need to clarify the status of colour vision as a disability. This is especially so when, as in this case, employers place unjustifiable obstacles in a persons way to employment.

What is absolutely clear is that there continues to exist within Strathclyde Police, ignorance and outdated attitudes towards certain issues, which brings into question their claims to be an employer of equal opportunity.

In understanding the issue of colour vision, it is important to understand that neither Mr Dixon nor Mr McCullie are blind. Neither are they unable to see and identify colours. They may,indeed, be able to see some colour that other cannot see. They may also be able to see colour in some situations where "normal" vision is limited.

In most situations colour vision "abnormality" makes no difference to a persons life or capability. In some situations it can be an asset.

While their colour perception may be slightly different from the majority, it is similar to a significant minority of the population. Just because they are different is no reason for anyone to discriminate against them - that is the simple issue in the cases these two men have taken to Tribunal.

yours

AbsolutelyPC

http://politically-correct.blogspot.com/

Editors Note
Mr Dixon's claim of Disability Discrimination was never heard at an Employment Tribunal due to the employment of legal technicalities by Strathclyde Police which resulted in a determination that the claim had been submitted a few days late.

Strathclyde Police and National Fitness Standard for the Scottish Police Service

Strathclyde Police requires all new recruits to meet the new National Fitness Standard for the Scottish Police Service.


From 1st September 2007, all new applicants and recruits to the Scottish Police Service have been required to undertake the new national fitness standard as a demonstration of physical fitness.


The new standard replaces the variety of fitness testing regimes utilised by the eight Scottish Forces to date. In addition, it links into the fitness regime used by the Scottish Police College during both the Initial Training and Reconvention probationary courses.


Once appointed, probationary officers will be expected to continue to demonstrate their fitness to the required levels throughout their probationary period.


Strathclyde Police appear willing to agree to this common standard yet have unilaterally rejected the common standards set down for colour vision by the Scottish Ministers, and approved by the same stakeholder bodies who will have agreed the new fitness standards, including ACPOS.


Throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, potential police recruits know precisely how their colour vision fits with the acceptable standards for being a police officer. Only in the area policed by Strathclyde are they given the message "you are not wanted".

• Colour vision defects are no longer a bar to entry. However severe colour vision deficiencies (monochromats) are not acceptable [Devon and Cornwall]


• The use of colour correcting lenses and sever colour vision deficiencies (monochromats) are unacceptable.Severe anomalous dichromats or trichomats are acceptable. [Cheshire]


• Severe colour vision deficiencies (monochromats) are not acceptable. Anomalous trichromats are acceptable. Severe anomalous trichromats or dichromats are also acceptable but you will need to be aware of the deficiency and make appropriate adjustments. [Northamptonshire]


• Severe colour vision deficiencies (monochromats) are not acceptable. Mild anomalous trichromats are acceptable. Severe anomalous dichromats or trichromats are also acceptable but you will need to be aware of the deficiency and make appropriate adjustments. [Northumbria]


• Click here for information on the Standards for Scottish police forces

Colour-blind PC wins case for sex discrimination

Following is a story run by The Independent in 2000

Colour-blind PC wins case for sex discrimination
Robert Verkaik Legal Affairs Correspondent

A COLOUR-BLIND policeman has won his case for sex discrimination after he was confined to desk duty because senior officers feared he might be a liability in court.
Police Constable Robert Webster, who cannot distinguish between shades of green, was told by Hertfordshire Constabulary that his disability meant he might have problems identifying people and cars. But a London employment tribunal has ruled that because men are 14 times more likely to be colour- blind than women, the force was guilty of indirect sex discrimination.

Lawyers representing Mr Webster told the tribunal that for 10 years he had worked as an operational police officer, giving evidence in court, without a single complaint about his colour-blindness.

An expert on eye defects told the tribunal police guidelines on colour- blindness were "more severe" than those for doctors or airline pilots. Law-yers said the ruling had implications for all colour-blind men who were restricted in their jobs because of an inability to distinguish between colours.

Seven per cent of men are colour-blind compared with 0.5 per cent of females. Mr Webster, 33, said yesterday the decision to remove him from operational duties had come as a "terrible shock". Before applying to join the police, he had called all the forces to find out whether they accepted colour-blind applicants. He found that a number would, including Hertfordshire. In 1988 he had a medical and was accepted by Hertfordshire Constabulary.

But last year he was selected for an advanced driving course and failed medical tests because of his condition. The doctor conducting the tests informed his superiors that his colour-blindness presented an "evidential problem which could affect his credibility in court". Mr Webster was asked to take up a desk job. He was told that, under Association of Chief Police Officers' (Acpo) guidelines, he should not have been appointed as a constable.

An internal report said there was a risk his evidence in respect of colours would always be "suspect, even if in practice he is usually correct". A report to the tribunal by Professor Geoffrey Arden, an expert in colour-blindness at the City University, disagreed with the police, saying Mr Webster's "visual performance" was "adequate for police work".

Ruling in Mr Webster's favour, the tribunal said the risk to his credibility as a witness was remote. It added: "This case comes down to Mr Webster's ability to distinguish between different shades of green."

Hertfordshire Constabulary said yesterday that while it sympathised with Mr Webster, his original employment had been an "exception to the rule" on colour-blindness. "[We] will be consulting the Acpo about the way forward."

The tribunal will decide next month whether to award Mr Webster compensation and may recommend that he be returned to operational duties.

Paul O'Brien, secretary of the joint central committee of the Police Federation, which supported Mr Webster, said the decision would have "major implications for thousands of serving, and aspiring, police officers, who will be afforded some protection".

Weblinks

• The Independant
• Archive of this story

Police have case to answer

Strathclyde Police have conceded they may have a case to answer in the situation where they rejected Mr Graeme McCullie as a potential recruit to their force.

Mr McCullie, of Kilmarnock, completed the force's rigorous selection procedure but was told he would not be admitted because of his colour vision.

Following articles on the BBC website and in the Scottish Daily Express and The Herald, Mr McCullie became aware that it might be possible to have his case resolved through an Employment Tribunal on the grounds that his rejection amounted to sex discrimination.

Although it was not possible for Mr McCullie to submit his claim within the normally permitted time limits, at an Employment Tribunal hearing in Glasgow on Monday 3 September 2007 Strathclyde Police conceded that "justice and equity" would permit his claim to procede to a full hearing of his case at a later date.

However, Strathclyde Police agreed to no such concession in the case of a second man rejected by them for the same reasons. In a case which is continuing, Mr Robin Dixon has now to plead that his case should also be heard despite being "out of time".

======================================

2 colour blind cops sue for discrimination

from the Evening Times Tuesday September 4 2007

Two men are sueing the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police for sex discrimination - after being rejected as recruits because they are colour blind.

Robin Dixon, 25, of Hamilton and Graeme Mccullie, 29 of Kilmarnock, both went through a selection procedure before being told they were unsuccessful.

But they have taken their case to an employment tribunal, claiming more men than women suffer from the condition, so they are the victims of indirect sex discrimination.

Mr Dixon had previously pursued a disability discrimination claim in November 2005, but that was rejected by another tribunal because it was time-barred.

The tribunal heard that at the time of his application to be a police officer he was told by Chief Inspector Douglas Campbell there were concerns as to the reliability and credibility of evidence, which would rely on Mr Dixon's ability to distinguish colours.

The case continues.

========================================

Colour blind recruits accuse police boss of sex discrimination

from the Scottish Daily Mail 4 September 2007

by Fiona Davidson

Two men told they could not join Scotland's biggest police force because they are colour blind are suing its chief constable - for sex discrimination.

Robin Dixon and Graeme McCullie applied to join Strathclyde Police and went through a rigorous selection procedure.

However they were told they had failed in their bid to join the force because they are colour blind.

The two men claim the decision was discriminatory on the basis that more men than women suffer from the condition and have taken their case to en employment tribunal.

Mr Dixon, 25, from Hamilton, Lanarkshire, has previously pursued a disability discrimination claim against Strathclyde Police as a result of his failed job application in November 2005.

That complaint was rejected by a Glasgow employment tribunal in August last year on the grounds that it was time barred.

However he has since discovered he may be able to pursue an indirect sex discrimination claim after reading of a case in England involving a colour blind police officer who raised an action against Hertfordshire Constabulary.

In that case, an officer suffered discrimination because his colour blindness meant he could not distinguish shades of green. An industrial tribunal confirmed that this could amount to indirect sex discrimination.

Mr Dixon told a preliminary hearing held in Glasgow yesterday to decide if his sex discrimination is time-barred that he was rejected by Strathclyde Police in November 2005 because of a colour vision abnormality.

He siad it was only after reading news reports that he learned about the Hertfordshire case and lodged his sex discrimination claim within a week.

However Strathclyde Police argued his family was aware of the English case prior to the publication of newspaper articles.

The tribunal heard Mr Dixon had previously been advised by Strathclyde Police that there were no reasonable adjustments that would enable him to carry out operational policing duties.

He was told at a meeting with Chief Inspector Douglas Campbell that he would have made a good police constable but his application would not be progressed.

Mr Dixon had highlighted a police circular about eyesight standards but Strathclyde Police said it was for guidance only and ultimately the decision rested with the Chief Constable, William Rae.

Mr Campbell told Mr Dixon there were concerns about not only his own health and safety but also that of other officers and the public.

The officer said there were worries over the reliability and credibility of any evidence he might have to give and said Mr Dixon's ability to distinguish colours could be called into question.

Mr McCullie, 28, from Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, whose application was rejected by Strathclyde Police in December 2005, lodged his sex discrimination claim after reading press reports last year.

The case continues.

• Link to this post
  http://politically-correct.blogspot.com/2007/09/colour-blind-recruits-accuse-police.html
  
  =====================================

Police bring out big guns

Strathclyde have brought the might of their legal services against two legally unrepresented men who have lodged Sex Discrimination claims against them.

The two men had their applications to become police officers rejected because of colour vision abnormality and Strathclyde Police are seeking to prevent the cases being tested before a full hearing of an employment tribunal.

At a preliminary hearing in the Employment Tribunal, Glasgow, Strathclyde Police used the "public purse" to bring in Advocate Peter Grant-Hutchison to assist their own Legal Services Manager, in an endeavour to prevent their claims being heard.

Peter Grant-Hutchison, a specialist in Employment Law and former Labour candidate for the Eastwood, is also a part-time Sheriff and holds several other significant legal positions.

The two men would have been acceptable for employment in other Scottish and UK police forces. An employment tribunal in England has previously questioned the need for identification of shades of colour in general police work.

The case continues.

Webster v. Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary [2000] ET/200687/99

Webster v. Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary is a case taken to the Employment Tribunal in London in 2000 on the ground of Sex Discrimination. In this case it was found that a male officer had been discriminated against because of colour blindness.

The police officer in question had been removed from operational police duties after, 10 years of service with Hertfordshire Constabularly, because he suffered from a particular type of colour blindness (a moderate deuteranomalous loss of colour vision), which meant that he could not distinguish between different shades of green.

He had declared the dficiency when he applied to the Force. 7% of men and 0.5% of women have hereditary defective colour vision. He alleged the need to have perfect colour vision was not justifiable.

The Employment Tribunal balanced the needs of the Force against the effects on Mr Webster and concluded that he had been indirectly dicriminated against on the grounds of his sex.

The Employment Tribunal questioned whether a person accused of murder would be acquitted because a witness could not distinguish a particular shade of green.

==========================================



Links

• XpertHR
• Learning the Lessons from Employment Tribunals (some Police Myths)
• Police Employment Discrimination

Discrimination case over colour-blindness

from The Herald 4 September 2007

TWO would-be police officers have taken the chief constable of Scotland’s largest force to an employ ment tribunal claiming sex discrimination after being rejected because they are colour-blind.

Robin Dixon, 25 , and Graeme McCullie, 28, both applied to join Strathclyde Police and went through a rigorous selection procedure before being advised their applications were unsuccessful. The two have now started sex discrimination proceedings before an employment tribunal on the basis that, since more men than women suffer from the condition, they are therefore the victims of indirect sex discrimination.

Police accused of discrimination

from BBC News Website - Monday 3 September 2007

Rejected police recruits have taken Scotland's largest force to an employment tribunal over claims they were the victims of sex discrimination.

The two candidates were turned down by the Strathclyde force because they have a form of colour-blindness usually only found in men.

Robin Dixon and Graeme McCullie claim the decision was discriminatory.

A preliminary meeting of the tribunal has been listening to debates over whether the case should be time-barred.

Strathclyde Police believes that employing officers with the colour-blindness condition would raise safety issues.

Mr Dixon had previously lost a similar claim under disability discrimination legislation.

The case continues.

===========================================
the above article is also carried on the Critical Estoppel website and on Journalisted

Force is facing a claim of sexism from men who failed in jobs bid

from the Scottish Sunday Express - August 26th 2007

Would-be officers rejected for being colour blind seek compensation

Force is facing a claim of sexism from men who failed in jobs bid

By Tom Martin

Scotland's largest police force faces a barrage of compensation claims in a row over rejected colour blind recruits.

In the past three years, Strathclyde Police rejected 16 candidates with vision problems despite government guidelines saying they should not have been barred.

But now two failed applicants could pave the way for others to seek thousands of pounds in compensation in a test case next week.

The move, by Robin Dixon, 25, and Graeme McCullie, 28, follows a landmark legal action south of the Border which found that a colour blind officer faced indirect sexual discrimination because the condition is more common in men than in women.

Mr Dixon, a store manager, from east Kilbride, has now launched a sex discrimination complaint alongside Mr McCullie.

Both men discovered other forces would have accepted them after a government review recommended colour blindness should not bar potential recruits.

Mr McCullie, from Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, who is now working as a plumber, said: "It was always my ambition to join the police and a real blow when my application was turned down.

"It seems rediculous at a time when you read about the police wanting to get more officers then rejecting them because of an outdated position that most others have changed."

He added: "I am not interested in compensation I just want to make sure no other potential recruits have to go through what happened to me."

The men's cases will be considered at a preliminary employment tribunal next Monday.

Mr Dixon is currently working in Dublin but his father, Robert, 55, said: "Other forces, including the Met, have said he would be acceptable to join them.

"We cannot understand why Strathclyde Police would continue to argue they are right when they are in the wrong."

Strathclyde Police said it was inappropriate to comment on individual applications but their spokeswoman added "current policy" prevented those with colour blindness from becoming police constables.

===========================

Colour Vision not a bar in Australia

Australian police forces are acknowledging that perfect colour vision is not essential in performing the role of an operational police officer.

The Australian Federal Police require testing of colour vision to a ‘defective safe’ standard (ref).

The requirement for "suitable colour vision" to join the Western Austalia Police has been removed and people with colour vision impairment, inclduing former applicants who previously did not comply with the colour vision standards, are now being encouraged to apply. (ref)

The Queensland Police Service standard in relation to colour vision does not call for perfect responses in relation to colour vision perception. The Service specifies a requirement for a good standard of colour vision in the perception of distinct colours, as opposed to perception of shades.

Meeting the Queensland standard requires each applicant's indivual colour vision to be assessed. General labelling would not be acceptable and could lead to claims under Australia's Disability Discrimination Act. (ref)

===============================