Police Height Requirement Held Indirectly Discriminatory Against Women

...that could not be objectively justified.

What Happened in the Case?

A notice for enrolment in the Greek police schools for the academic year 2007-2008 was published on behalf of the Chief of the Greek Police. This contained a requirement that all candidates must be 170cm tall, without shoes. This requirement stemmed from Greek national law.

A Greek woman, Ms Kalliri, submitted her application to be considered to a police station in Vrachati with the relevant supporting documents. Her application was returned to her on the basis that as she was only 168cm tall, she did not meet the minimum height requirement.  

Ms Kalliri argued before the Administrative Court of Appeal in Athens that the minimum height requirement is contrary to the constitutional principle of equality of the sexes. The Court upheld her claim. This was challenged by the Interior Minister and the Minister for Education and Religious Affairs, and the matter was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The Decision

The CJEU held that the height requirement was in breach of the Equal Treatment directive and could not be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

It reached this decision on the basis that, although operational capacity and the proper functioning of the police is a legitimate aim, the imposition of a physical attribute requirement (in this case, a minimum height) was not an appropriate way of achieving this. The CJEU noted that many functions within the police do not require certain physical attributes, such as providing assistance to citizens or traffic control. In addition, the CJEU also noted that in the unlikely case that all police functions required certain physical capabilities, there are other means of testing this than by using an individual's height.

Therefore the CJEU held that, subject to the findings of the Greek court on the facts of the case, the provision relating to a minimum height requirement in this instance was indirectly discriminatory and could not be justified.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

This case serves as a reminder that, whilst in certain circumstances indirect discrimination can be justified, employers must be careful to ensure that any provision, criterion or practice does not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary.

Policies should be reviewed by employers and, if necessary, alternative methods of achieving the aims set out within these should be considered.

For more information, please contact Amaya Hobby in our Employment Law team on 0117 314 5640.