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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll