Two veteran firefighters forced to retire due to heart problems yesterday won a landmark case against their employers.

Chief Justice Richard Ground ruled that Michael Roberts and Stephen Hayward were discriminated against on the grounds of disability and should be awarded damages and legal costs.

The men, who sued the Ministry of Labour and the Chief Fire Officer after the Human Rights Commission dismissed their complaint, said after the verdict they were pleased their eight-year fight was finally over.

Mr. Hayward, 61, of Smith's, said: "I feel relieved after all these years to finally have this thing resolved. It was a bit of a slog trying to get this far because it felt somewhat hampered but we eventually got it to a trial and that's what we aimed for."

Mr. Roberts, 56, of Warwick, said: "We expected this outcome so it's nothing surprising. But we're very pleased."

The pair were both retired by the Bermuda Fire Service (BFS) in May 2000 because neither was deemed "operationally fit" to be a firefighter.

Father-of-two Mr. Roberts joined the BFS in 1971 and eventually became a lieutenant. He suffered a heart attack in 1999 followed by further problems which left him incapable of active firefighting duties. He was due to retire in December 2006.

Mr. Hayward, a father-of-one and grandfather, should have retired in December 2001 after joining the service full-time in 1977 and rising to the rank of sergeant.

He was diagnosed with a heart condition in December 1999 and had a pacemaker/defibrillator fitted which meant physical exertion put him at risk of sudden death.

The men's case, brought under the Human Rights Act at the Supreme Court, was that the BFS had non-operational positions for which they were qualified and trained and could have done until the ordinary retirement age for firefighters of 55.

The defendants, represented by lawyer Gregory Howard, argued that officers in those positions still had to be operationally fit and to keep them on would have placed an "inordinate and unreasonable burden" on the service.

Mr. Howard said that though the Human Rights Act 1981 made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the grounds of disability, it did not give a person the right to be retained in a job for which he was unable to fulfil a "bona fide occupational requirement".

Mr. Justice Ground concluded that the Ministry and Chief Fire Officer did not demonstrate that retaining the two men in non-operational roles, such as in the Fire Prevention Division, would have caused unreasonable hardship.

He said other firefighters had been kept on non-operational duties and that those cases demonstrated that it was possible for the BFS to have unfit officers in non-active posts.

But he added that his ruling was coloured by the men's length of service, experience and the relatively short time left to their normal retirement date.

"I do consider that physical fitness is a bona fide occupational requirement of the BFS and nothing in this judgement should taken as suggesting that they could be compelled to recruit an unfit person or to retain someone who became unfit early in their career," said his written judgement.

Allan Doughty, lawyer for the two men, said the ruling was significant since it was the first time that the "bona fide occupational requirement" defence had been used by an employer and the first time "unreasonable hardship" in such a case had been defined by a judge.

"This is a precedent without a doubt," he said. "It's definitely the precedent that will be followed on the issue of disability discrimination. We are very pleased with the outcome."

The Chief Justice said the men should receive damages based on their loss of earnings plus any reduction in the value of their pensions. Mr. Doughty would not comment on the legal costs.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Labour and the Bermuda Fire Service said the Supreme Court decision was being reviewed and various legal options considered. "However, at this time no decision has been made on any course of action," she added.