When Workplace Tests Aren’t as Fair as They Look: Lessons from a Firefighter Case
A recent decision by the Workplace Relations Commission offers an important reminder for employees who face rigid tests, assessments, or "pass-fail" criteria at work. The case involved a serving female firefighter in her 40s who applied for a full-time role but was knocked out of the competition after failing the "beep test" — a shuttle-run fitness test that has been used for decades.
She passed every other element, was already working operationally as a firefighter, and later independently demonstrated that her aerobic fitness (VO₂ max) actually met and exceeded the required standard using a more accurate test. Despite this, the employer refused to accept the alternative evidence.
The WRC found that the way the test was applied was discriminatory on grounds of age and gender — not because fitness standards are wrong, but because the method used to measure fitness was treated as non-negotiable, even when it clearly disadvantaged certain candidates.
Here are three takeaways employees should understand.
1) Employers can set standards — but they must justify how they measure them.
In real workplaces, employers often rely on familiar or convenient tests because they're easy to administer. But if a test is only a proxy for the real requirement, employers must be able to explain why that proxy is necessary.
If you can meet the underlying requirement through reliable evidence, the employer can't ignore it simply for convenience.
2) "Same rules for everyone" does not always mean fair.
Many employees believe equality means everyone being treated identically. The law looks deeper than that.
A rule that appears neutral can still be unfair if it consistently disadvantages certain groups and isn't strictly necessary. This is especially relevant for physical tests, performance metrics, or rigid scoring systems.
3) Silence can carry hidden risks for employees.
When a process feels unfair, employees often blame themselves and move on. But accepting an outcome without question can affect future opportunities and reinforce flawed systems.
Power imbalances matter: employers design the process, set the rules, and control retests or alternatives. Procedural fairness is about whether they genuinely engage with evidence — not whether they act politely.
The wider lesson is this: if you're capable of doing the job but blocked by a rigid process, it's worth pausing before assuming the decision is unchallengeable. Getting early, informed advice can help you decide whether the issue is genuinely about capability — or about a system that hasn't kept pace with reality.