header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Rights & wrongs where employees monitored by wearable neurotech

220705
When advanced neurotechnology is used to monitor employees, what legal issues arise? In this week’s NLJ, Harry Lambert, Outer Temple Chambers, and Josh Neaman, Devereux Chambers, examine workplace rights at a new frontier, in the 8th part of a special NLJ series

Wearable brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) create challenges relating to unfair dismissal and discrimination. Workplace monitoring via BCIs could lead to discrimination, particularly once algorithmic biases affect data reliability.

Lambert, founder and head of the Centre for Neurotechnology and Law, and Neaman, give the example of ‘emotional monitoring of floor staff in a restaurant reveals which staff have the greater propensity to get angry with customers. This information then forms the basis for management decisions around that employee’. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll