Latest news with #Rippling
Irish Examiner
6 hours ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Two people allegedly involved in surveillance of 'spy' case man are named in court case
Two people who were allegedly involved in surveilling and harassing the man at the centre of the "spying" row between two rival HR giants have been added as defendants in a High Court case related to the affair. Retired private investigator, Mark Murran, otherwise known as Rock Investigations, was allegedly the driver of a car involved in following and surveilling Keith O'Brien, a former Dublin-based payroll manager with Rippling, a US-headquartered multibillion-dollar HR software provider, the court heard. Cliona Woods of Dublin-based Gotham Services was allegedly involved in organising "discreet surveillance". Both were joined as defendants in Mr O'Brien's action over the matter. Both "categorically refute" Mr O'Brien's allegations of intimidation and harassment and say the surveillance was discreet, their barrister John O'Regan told the court on Tuesday. The case was back before Mr Justice Brian Cregan to deal with a number of applications in advance of the hearing of the case, including changing the defendants from "persons unknown" to the two named defendants. Deel Inc It was also back in to consider whether Deel Inc, the other US-based HR firm involved, should also be joined to the case. Deel allegedly paid Mr O'Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, to pass on Rippling's trade secrets to it, a claim it denies. Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O'Brien, said the defendants had consented to an order not to surveil Mr O'Brien pending determination of the proceedings. Counsel said she was not making an application to join Deel as the purpose of the case was to resolve the dispute between her client and the defendants. There may also be a third defendant but her side needed time to write to that potential defendant, she said. Counsel also said there was a significant dispute over whether the surveillance amounted to harassment which the defendants say it did not. Mr Justice Cregan said he had been mulling over the issue and he was considering joining Deel at the motion of the court. While this was against the wishes of the O'Brien side, he did it in the context of an earlier claim that the surveillance was an interference with the administration of justice as Mr O'Brien is a defendant and witness in separate proceedings being brought over the alleged spying affair by Rippling against Deel. It was also in circumstances where Deel's lawyers had, in a pre-litigation letter in reply to Mr O'Brien's solicitor, said it had no knowledge of the particular alleged surveillance being carried out. The judge said: Now that letter is either a blatant lie or a misrepresentation. He said the defendants were employed by Deel which meant it was directly implicated. Ms McGrath asked the court to first allow the parties (her client and Deel) to exchange pleadings in the normal way. Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, said he took "grave exception to what the court said". He believed the court should not be pronouncing on a letter as misrepresentation until it had heard all the facts. His side had written that letter according to what it believed to be true at the time, he said. If the plaintiff says it did not want Deel joined, it was not for the court to say it should, he said. His client had actually invited the O'Brien side to do so but it chose not to. Counsel also pointed out that Mr O'Brien has entered into a co-operation agreement with Rippling, has agreed not to seek any reliefs against him in the separate Rippling/Deel case and has waived all claims against him. The judge said he knew that joining a defendant to proceedings at the court's own motion was an exceptional jurisdiction but that was in the circumstances of the allegations of intimidation and a letter which appeared to be manifestly misleading. He said he wanted to reflect on the matter and will decide at the end of the week whether to hear submissions from the parties on the issue. He also said given that Mr Gardiner accepted the letter was incorrect, he did not see why counsel took "such umbrage at my interpretation". Ms McGrath said she thought Mr Gardiner "is making a mountain out of a very small molehill". He continued the injunctions restraining surveillance of Mr O'Brien and requiring the defendants to preserve any evidence which may be used in the case. He would also hear an application on Friday by the defendants requiring Mr O'Brien to preserve evidence. Read More Case involving alleged spy now focusing on where payment to him came from
BreakingNews.ie
7 hours ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Two people allegedly involved in surveillance of HR firm 'spy' are named in court
Two people who were allegedly involved in surveilling and harassing the man at the centre of the "spying" row between two rival HR giants have been added as defendants in a High Court case related to the affair. Retired private investigator Mark Murran, otherwise known as Rock Investigations, was allegedly the driver of a car involved in following and surveilling Keith O'Brien, a former Dublin-based payroll manager with Rippling, a US-headquartered multibillion-dollar HR software provider, the court heard. Advertisement Cliona Woods of Dublin-based Gotham Services was allegedly involved in organising "discreet surveillance". Both were joined as defendants in Mr O'Brien's action over the matter. Both "categorically refute" Mr O'Brien's allegations of intimidation and harassment and say the surveillance was discreet, their barrister John O'Regan told the court on Tuesday. The case was back before Mr Justice Brian Cregan to deal with a number of applications in advance of the hearing of the case, including changing the defendants from "persons unknown" to the two named defendants. It was also back in to consider whether Deel Inc, the other US based HR firm involved, should also be joined to the case. Deel allegedly paid Mr O'Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, to pass on Rippling's trade secrets to it, a claim it denies. Advertisement Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O'Brien, said the defendants had consented to an order not to surveil Mr O'Brien pending determination of the proceedings. Counsel said she was not making an application to join Deel as the purpose of the case was to resolve the dispute between her client and the defendants. There may also be a third defendant but her side needed time to write to that potential defendant, she said. Counsel also said there was a significant dispute over whether the surveillance amounted to harassment, which the defendants say it did not. Mr Justice Cregan said he had been mulling over the issue and he was considering joining Deel at the motion of the court. While this was against the wishes of the O'Brien side, he did it in the context of an earlier claim that the surveillance was an interference with the administration of justice as Mr O'Brien is a defendant and witness in separate proceedings being brought over the alleged spying affair by Rippling against Deel. Advertisement It was also in circumstances where Deel's lawyers had, in a pre-litigation letter in reply to Mr O'Brien's solicitor, said it had no knowledge of the particular alleged surveillance being carried out. "Now that letter is either a blatant lie or a misrepresentation", the judge said. He said the defendants were employed by Deel, which meant it was directly implicated. Ms McGrath asked the court to first allow the parties (her client and Deel) to exchange pleadings in the normal way. Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, said he took "grave exception to what the court said". He believed the court should not be pronouncing on a letter as misrepresentation until it had heard all the facts. His side had written that letter according to what it believed to be true at the time, he said. Advertisement If the plaintiff says it did not want Deel joined, it was not for the court to say it should, he said. His client had actually invited the O'Brien side to do so, but it chose not to. Counsel also pointed out that Mr O'Brien has entered into a cooperation agreement with Rippling, has agreed not to seek any reliefs against him in the separate Rippling/Deel case and has waived all claims against him. Ireland HR firm Deel admits it instructed 'discreet' surve... Read More The judge said he knew that joining a defendant to proceedings at the court's own motion was an exceptional jurisdiction, but that was in the circumstances of the allegations of intimidation and a letter which appeared to be manifestly misleading. He said he wanted to reflect on the matter and will decide at the end of the week whether to hear submissions from the parties on the issue. Advertisement He also said, given that Mr Gardiner accepted the letter was incorrect, he did not see why counsel took "such umbrage at my interpretation". Ms McGrath said she thought Mr Gardiner "is making a mountain out of a very small molehill". He continued the injunctions restraining surveillance of Mr O'Brien and requiring the defendants to preserve any evidence which may be used in the case. He would also hear an application on Friday by the defendants requiring Mr O'Brien to preserve evidence.
Irish Independent
6 days ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
HR software giant Deel admits it instructed ‘discreet' surveillance be carried out on Irish payroll manager
One of the companies in the international HR firms' "spy" dispute instructed that "discreet" surveillance be carried out on the Irish payroll compliance manager at the centre of High Court proceedings over the affair, a judge was told on Wednesday. US headquartered Deel Inc, which allegedly recruited Dublin man Keith O'Brien to pass on trade secrets to it from his employer Rippling, also headquartered in the US, did not instruct that there be covert or intimidatory surveillance on Mr O'Brien, Mr Justice Brian Cregan was told.
BreakingNews.ie
6 days ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Deel admits it instructed 'discreet' surveillance on spy case man
One of the companies in the international HR firms' "spy" dispute instructed that "discreet" surveillance be carried out on the Irish payroll compliance manager at the centre of High Court proceedings over the affair, a High Court judge has been told. US headquartered Deel Inc, which allegedly recruited Dublin man Keith O'Brien to pass on trade secrets to it from his employer Rippling, also headquartered in the US, did not instruct that there be covert or intimidatory surveillance on Mr O'Brien, Mr Justice Brian Cregan was told. Advertisement Last Friday, Mr O'Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, was granted a one side only represented injunction preventing "persons unknown", who were seen driving two different cars in the vicinity of Mr O'Brien's home and workplace, from harassing or intimidating him by following, photographing and recording him or members of his family. They were also restrained from attending within one kilometre of those places. The case was against persons unknown because his lawyers did not, at that stage, know the identities of the owners/drivers of the vehicles. The court was also told by Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O'Brien, that it was believed the people involved were working for Deel and the conduct was designed to intimidate him because he had agreed to cooperate with Rippling in a separate case it is bringing over the spy affair against Deel and Mr O'Brien. Advertisement The court heard however that, in response to requests to desist, Deel's solicitors Hayes LLP had written to say their client had "no knowledge" of surveillance by any persons in the vehicles identified. On Wednesday, when the case returned to the High Court, Ms McGrath said there had been dramatic developments over the previous 24 hours. The identities associated with the two cars had been provided and the owner/driver of one car allegedly seen in one incident, a couple who attended court, were not involved in any surveillance and the case against them was being discontinued, counsel said. The driver of the second vehicle, which was involved in five other alleged incidents of following and surveilling, had also come forward. Advertisement John O'Regan BL, for the second driver, asked the judge that his client's name be anonymised until he is able to make a formal application in this respect. Counsel said the application will be in accordance with case precedent or statute law because his client has significant health issues and operates "in the sphere of surveillance", and revealing his identity could put his safety at risk and damage his business. Counsel also asked the case be put back as his client, while refuting Mr O'Brien's claims, wanted to come to a practical agreement in relation to the court orders. Mr Justice Cregan said he was prepared to hear the application for anonymisation of the defendant but was reluctant to make an order in relation to that at this stage. Advertisement The court heard that while Deel was not a defendant in Mr O'Brien's action, which includes a claim for damages, the judge had directed that their lawyers attend court on Wednesday to say why they should or should not be a party. Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, told the judge his client had instructed that "discreet surveillance" be carried out on Mr O'Brien, but there was no question that it should be covert and used to intimidate or harass him. "My client (Deel) engaged with Person B (to carry out surveillance) and unknown to us, they engaged Person A and Deel was not involved in instructing anyone to carry out intimidation, and we refute that", he said. The judge said given Deel's solicitors' response to requests to desist from Mr O'Brien's lawyers of having "no knowledge" of those involved in following him, it "could be interpreted as being economical with the verité (truth)". Advertisement Mr Gardiner replied his side only ascertained the actual position over the weekend. He also said his client was agreeable to not surveilling Mr O'Brien any further, and if he wished that Deel should be a defendant, he should serve papers to that effect. Ms McGrath, for Mr O'Brien, said they would have to consider that as they would need to see what instructions, including text messages, Deel gave to Person B to carry out the surveillance. The judge continued the injunctions and adjourned the matter for a week.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Hiring software Workday's AI may have an ‘ageist' problem, company claims, ‘they are not trained to…'
Image credit: Workday Hiring software provider Workday is facing a class action lawsuit that alleges its AI-powered job applicant screening system has an "ageist" problem. The lawsuit claims that Workday's AI-powered system discriminates against candidates aged 40 and over. The lawsuit builds on an employment discrimination complaint filed last year by Derek Mobley against the company. Mobley's initial suit alleged that the company's algorithm-based system discriminated against applicants based on race, age, and disability. According to a report by Forbes, four more plaintiffs have now joined the lawsuit, specifically accusing Workday of age discrimination . What Workday said about the lawsuit In an email sent to Forbes, a Workday spokesperson denied allegations that their technology contains bias. The company said, 'This lawsuit is without merit. Workday's AI recruiting tools do not make hiring decisions, and our customers maintain full control and human oversight of their hiring process. Our AI capabilities look only at the qualifications listed in a candidate's job application and compare them with the qualifications the employer has identified as needed for the job. They are not trained to use—or even identify—protected characteristics like race, age, or disability. The court has already dismissed all claims of intentional discrimination, and there's no evidence that the technology results in harm to protected groups.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The Workday spokesperson also noted that the company has recently implemented measures to ensure that the software they use adheres to ethical standards. Hidden bias in AI hiring tools and why automation may not always be fair As per data compiled by DemandSage, an estimated 87% of companies are reportedly using AI for recruitment in 2025. The report notes that these companies rely on tools like Workable, Bamboo HR, and Rippling for the same. While these systems help automate hiring, a study by the University of Washington from last year revealed that they are often biased. AI tools can show traits of racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases from the data they're trained on or from the algorithms themselves. One of the examples is Amazon's scrapped AI tool that discriminated against women and resume filters that favour elite education or specific language patterns, often excluding underrepresented groups. Redmi Pad 2: Know these Things Before Buying! AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
