Pilot Faces Suspension for Declining to Wear Mask During the Pandemic

A British Airways pilot who was prohibited from flying due to his refusal to wear a mask during the pandemic has been unsuccessful in his attempt to file a discrimination lawsuit against the airline. Peter Burch argued that he should not be compelled to adhere to what he considered to be arbitrary and unnecessary rules, asserting that he had a fundamental right to breathe freely. He likened his stance on mask-wearing to a religious belief and sought legal protection on those grounds.

 

However, an employment tribunal judge ruled against Mr. Burch, stating that his refusal to wear a mask did not meet the criteria to be considered a philosophical belief. The judge's rationale was that this belief could potentially infringe upon the fundamental human rights of others who might be exposed to the risk of contracting a disease from him.

 

The tribunal heard that Mr. Burch had been on furlough for a significant period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He had to complete a course, including a training flight to Miami in February 2022. The night before the flight, he experienced significant stress upon receiving the airline's policy mandating mask-wearing on board, ultimately calling in sick. During his next scheduled training duty, Mr. Burch did not wear a mask, asserting that he was exempt from doing so. This exemption was rejected, leading to his placement on unpaid leave.

 

In a letter to his manager in February 2022, he expressed his reluctance to be compelled to wear a mask, emphasizing British Airways' duty of care towards him. Mr. Burch subsequently took legal action against British Airways, claiming discrimination, and contending that his opposition to mask-wearing should be safeguarded under equality laws. He asserted, "My claim here is that I have an inherent right to 'breathe freely,' a phrase I use both metaphorically and literally."

 

Nevertheless, Employment Judge Elizabeth Coll concluded that Mr. Burch's stance did not meet the criteria to be considered a philosophical belief, primarily because he acknowledged that his position could change if presented with scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of masks in preventing disease transmission. Judge Coll dismissed his claim, observing that Mr. Burch seemed to recognize that his exercise of human rights by not wearing a mask could potentially pose a problem for those who were vulnerable. Consequently, his belief was seen as conflicting with the fundamental rights of others, including the right to life as defined in Article 2, which states that "no one shall be deprived of his life intentionally."