Glock too big for your hands? Sue, it is obviously descrimination!

Wolverine · Feb 19, 2014

Female firearms officers win £70,000 payout for sex discrimination - because their guns were too big for their small hands

Victoria Wheatley and Rachel Giles are part of armed units at nuclear sites
As part of their jobs, they are required to take test shoots
Failing a test shoot could mean that officers lose their jobs
Pair complained that their performance was hampered by equipment
They said the handles of their guns were too big
Both officers say they complained to senior staff but were ignored

By Larisa Brown

PUBLISHED: 13:37 EST, 17 February 2014 | UPDATED: 16:10 EST, 17 February 2014

2,553 shares

920

View
comments

Ms Wheatley complained that the handle of her Glock 17 pistol (pictured) was too big for her hands
+3

Ms Wheatley complained that the handle of her Glock 17 pistol (pictured) was too big for her hands

Two petite firearms officers are set to receive a pay-out of £70,000 after winning a sex discrimination case over the size of their big guns.

Victoria Wheatley and Rachael Giles said their weapons were too big for their small hands and as a result they could not reach the trigger, a tribunal has heard.

The two women struggled with the grip of the pistols they were using a Glock 17 and they also claimed their heads and legs were too small for their protective gear.

The case, held at the Central London Employment Tribunal last week, found the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) guilty of discrimination against both officers in the provision of suitable firearms and safety equipment.

It is understood the officers are set to receive £35,000 each after winning the case against the force but there is expected to be an appeal.

The decision comes after a number of extraordinary cases where police forces across the country have had to pay out thousands in compensation to officers due to injuries at work - including £8,000 to a policeman bitten by fleas.

The two officers were based at different stations in the north west, with Miss Wheatley part of the armed unit which protects the Sellafield atomic complex in Cumbria and Miss Giles based at Chapelcross, near Annan.

Both females, who were 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, the tribunal heard.

They also said their trainers failed to adjust their pistols while carrying out a test shoot.

More...

'Boys will be boys': The heartless explanation by lawyer when asked by mother of rape victim aged FIVE why it happened to her child
How a brave paratrooper maimed by the Taliban was driven from the Army by a bullying Sgt Major

They both complained separately about their problems, after it is understood they did not receive as high a test marks as their male colleagues which put them at a disadvantage.

Their solicitor, Binder Bansel, of Pattinson & Brewer, said that every officer joining at the rank of constable or sergeant is required to train to recognised standards as an authorised firearms officer and maintain the standard.

A cycle of annual training shoots tests their ability which they must undertake as part of their job.

Mr Bansel said: Continued failure at these shoot days results in an unsatisfactory assessment, which could lead to the officer being dismissed. Miss Wheatley, 39, and Miss Giles, 32, also said there were other problems during the tests, including protection equipment which did not fit.

They argued the helmets and kneepads were too large for their legs and heads which hindered their performance.

They also argued they were too short for a wooden barricade, which was used as a resting place for the firearm.

Ms Wheatley is part of the armed unit which protects the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria
+3

Ms Wheatley is part of the armed unit which protects the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria

The barricade was built for an officer of average male height and only offered support for those much taller. It is not known how tall the women were.

The tribunal found there was no justification for this.

It was said the women raised their concerns on a regular basis but they were often dismissed, with no adequate consideration.

The CNC said it was planning to appeal the tribunal decision.

A spokesman said: The judgement has been passed and the CNC has lost on the grounds of indirect sex discrimination, however any claims of victimisation were unanimously dismissed.

As a result of what was discussed in this case, the CNC can also state it will be conducting an equality impact assessment.

This is to ensure that the CNC remains committed to providing the right training and equipment, together with a commitment to equal opportunities. Miss Wheatley and Miss Giles were members of the Civil Nuclear Police Federation, which supported the claim.

A spokesman for the federation said the officers were expecting to receive a pay-out of £35,000 each subject to an appeal and remained in their current roles.

They said the pay-out was on the basis of sex discrimination which included their reputational damage as they received lower marks on their tests as a result.
Ms Giles worked at the Chapelcross nuclear site near Annan, though the plant is now shut down (file picture)
+3

Ms Giles worked at the Chapelcross nuclear site near Annan, though the plant is now shut down (file picture)

The spokesman added: It was all part and parcel of it the damage to their reputations because if they were scoring less on these proficiency tests while other colleagues were more suited to the equipment, they were in a lesser position. The spokesman said they may not receive the pay-out for months due to the appeal.

No further details of the officers could be released due to the fact the case was still on-going.

After the judgement, chief executive of the federation, Nigel Dennis, said he was pleased with the outcome, adding he hoped the constabulary would remove the disadvantage and ensure all officers had a fair opportunity.

In December last year it emerged a police community support officer who injured her knee while investigating a burglary was awarded £4,000 in compensation.

Pauline Harrison, 53, was responding to a 999 call reporting a break-in at a derelict school when she fell over a 3ft-high wooden fence.

In April last year a policeman was paid £8,000 compensation after being bitten by fleas while at work.

The extraordinary injury claim was made after colleagues complained that their police station in Birmingham had become infested with the insects.

It was one of a number of workplace injury claims paid by West Midlands Police which had spent £900,000 settling cases made by more than 50 policemen in three years.

And WPC Kelly Jones triggered public outrage and criticism from her own chief constable last year for suing a burglary victim for £50,000 after tripping over a kerb.

Other claims include a police officer awarded £16,610 in compensation after he fell over a pile of blankets while chasing a suspect.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...chiefs-gun-big-small-hands.html#ixzz2tmiGTkNJ

If the Glock is too big for your hands, just sue, it is obviously discrimination.

Would a man be able to sue for discrimination...?

taikoo · Feb 19, 2014

Wolverine said: ↑

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...chiefs-gun-big-small-hands.html#ixzz2tmiGTkNJ

If the Glock is too big for your hands, just sue, it is obviously discrimination.

Would a man be able to sue for discrimination...?
Click to expand...

of course, anyone who is discriminated against can.

If all your equipment was made to fit me, you'd not be a happy camper.

ryobi · Feb 19, 2014

Don't para-troopers have a height requirement. As in, you can't be too tall to be a para-trooper. Since men are generally taller than women, based on the logic in the article, shouldn't tall men be allowed to sue the military for not being allowed to be para-troopers, just like the women in the article were allowed to sue their employer for being too small???

I mean if all feminism means is, "equality," this is a reasonable assumption right???

Since these women won their lawsuit, isn't this an admission that there are biological differences between men and women. In other words, doesn't this admission contradict feminist's contention that gender is a social construct??? Oh what delimas exist when you're a feminist

Log in or Sign up

Glock too big for your hands? Sue, it is obviously descrimination!

Wolverine New Member Past Donor

taikoo Banned

ryobi Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Glock too big for your hands? Sue, it is obviously descrimination!

Wolverine New Member Past Donor

taikoo Banned

ryobi Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches