header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Lineker-Gate & the employer’s right to veto tweets

122341
The dispute over football celebrity Gary Lineker’s tweets captured the public imagination and backfired spectacularly on the BBC, but what if Lineker had been an employee? In this week’s NLJ, Charles Pigott, professional support lawyer, Mills & Reeve, looks into whether employers have rights to restrict their employee’s tweets or other private expressions of opinion.

Pigott assesses the ‘weaponry’ at a worker’s disposal, covering unfair dismissal, discrimination law, victimisation, and human rights.

He writes: ‘People as prominent and popular as Gary Lineker can probably look after themselves, but our domestic law arguably provides insufficient protection for individuals to express their personal opinions on social media when these are in conflict with their employer’s interests and do not amount to the expression of protected beliefs.’ 

Read more from Pigott here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll