The court of Appeal has now ruled that the dismissal was disproportionate. Photo credit: ARMMY PICCA/Shutterstock
The fear of flying affects an estimated 500 million people worldwide. Some of those people fly despite their fear, sometimes with the help of medication, while for others the fear is so severe that they avoid flying altogether.
For people with a severe fear of flying, the prospect of having to board a plane can be more than just uncomfortable, particularly when international travel becomes part of their working life. But what happens when an employer expects you to travel by air, and you have already made it clear that you cannot?
His employer knew about his fear for years
Giuseppe Capoluongo had worked as a cabling technician for Bergami Packaging Solutions in Altedo, near Bologna, since 2002. His fear of flying became an issue in 2011, when a possible work trip to the United States was discussed.
Most Read on Euro Weekly News
He told the company he suffered from aerophobia and supplied a medical certificate. Following a meeting involving a representative from the FIOM trade union, the company agreed not to send him on assignments that required air travel. For more than 12 years, he was not asked to undertake work trips involving flights.
The passport request that led to his dismissal
That arrangement came under pressure in 2024, when the company wanted Capoluongo to be available for possible overseas assignments. It repeatedly asked him, including in writing, to begin the process of obtaining a passport. Capoluongo did not act on the requests. He maintained his position because of his fear of flying and believed the previous arrangement with his employer still applied.
The company treated his failure to comply as a disciplinary matter, taking account of earlier sanctions, and dismissed him on 27 March 2024. Capoluongo challenged the decision in court, but initially lost. In November 2025, the Bologna tribunal ruled in the company’s favour, finding that his medical certificate did not exempt him from obtaining a passport and that he had no sufficient justification for failing to do so. He appealed the ruling.
Why the appeal court ruled in his favour
The Bologna Court of Appeal has now overturned that decision in part, finding that dismissal was a disproportionate response to his conduct. The judges did not say the company was wrong to ask him to apply for a passport. They accepted that the request was legitimate and that his failure to respond had disciplinary significance. However, they considered the circumstances in which the dispute arose, including the employer’s longstanding knowledge of his condition and the arrangement that had been followed for more than a decade.
After so many years without being asked to fly for work, Capoluongo could reasonably have believed that the agreement remained in place. His failure to act on the passport requests was not serious enough to justify losing his job, the appeal court found. His lawyer, Alberto Piccinini, told Italian media that the key issue was proportionality. During the final discussions with the company, Capoluongo had indicated that he would proceed with the passport application if it was required. According to his lawyer, he was dismissed the following day.
How much must the company pay?
Capoluongo’s lawyer, Alberto Piccinini, told Italian media that the key issue was proportionality. During discussions before his dismissal, the worker had indicated he would proceed with the passport application if the company required it. According to reports, he was dismissed the following day.
The appeal court awarded him compensation equivalent to 20 months of his final salary. Based on monthly pay of over €2,500 this comes to over €52,000 with additional compensation for notice, interest and inflation adjustments. The court did not order the company to reinstate him. Its decision instead overturned the earlier ruling in the employer’s favour and found that dismissal was too severe a penalty for his failure to obtain the passport.