Bad news. To be judged and rejected on the basis of height is bad, very bad.
Height isn't the real issue here. It's the fact that Ben falls outwith the safe physical parameters for NATS' workplace. (it could be height, weight, one arm, one leg etc..)
Ok, it's probably not something NATS had thought about before - and probably now have a height limit in place (do they?).
I never believed that this was really 'indirect sex discrimination' and I'm glad it was proved not to be.
Mr Sargeaunt-Thomson said: "I will fight this as far as I can because I do believe I should not be discriminated against because of my height in the same way as you cannot discriminate against someone in a wheelchair.
Quite right, but not putting someone in a job because it may damage them or they are physically unable to operate the equipment is not discrimination. It's showing consideration for the indivduals welfare.