Worker in Ireland employed by X to stop disruptive tweets settles case against the firm
The High Court was told that the entire action brought by Aaron Rodericks, who is the co-lead of Threat Disruption at X had been resolved and that the matter could be struck out. Picture; Jonathan Brady/PA Wire
A senior Irish-based employee of the social media platform X who allegedly liked tweets critical of the company and its owner Elon Musk has settled his High Court action against his employer.
The High Court was told on Thursday morning that the entire action brought by Aaron Rodericks, who is the co-lead of Threat Disruption at X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, had been resolved and that the matter could be struck out.
Part of Mr Roderick's role with the company is to help prevent disruption and misinformation being posted on X about elections.
In his action, Mr Rodericks claimed that he had been subjected to a disciplinary process that was "a complete sham" over allegations that he "demonstrated hostility" to the company for allegedly liking tweets by third parties that are critical of X, Mr Musk and the firm's CEO Linda Yaccarine. Mr Rodericks, with an address at Cualanor, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin, denied any wrongdoing in respect of his employment.
A disciplinary hearing against Mr Rodericks was due to be heard by the company last September. However, shortly before that meeting was due to commence, the High Court granted Mr Rodericks a temporary injunction, which had been granted on an ex-parte basis, halting that process.
His proceedings were against Twitter International Unlimited Company. It had denied any wrongdoing and had argued that the injunction should be lifted. The High Court was due to hear an application to have the injunction kept in place pending the outcome of the full hearing of the dispute.
However, when the application to continue the injunction was called on, Colm Kitson Bl instructed by Daniel Spring and Company Solicitors for Mr Rodericks, told Mr Justice Sanfey that the matter had been resolved and the entire proceedings could be struck out. Brendan Kirwan SC for the defendant said his side was consenting to that order.
No details of the settlement, which is understood to be confidential, was revealed to the court. The judge welcomed the settlement, and praised the legal teams on both sides for bringing about a resolution of the proceedings.
In his action, Mr Rodericks had claimed that the disciplinary process against him arose after he had posted about job vacancies at the company on his personal X account. In response, he said he received "a barrage of threatening, and abusive messages" from persons who wrongly believed the posts were an attempt by X to censor free speech and influence election outcomes.
He claimed he made the company aware of the backlash he received, but says it took no action. He claimed that he was subsequently made the subject of a disciplinary process that saw him suspended from his job for allegedly liking disparaging posts about X, Mr Musk, and Ms Yaccarino.
He said that he was very surprised over the allegations, as the company had adopted a strong position on the freedom of speech on the platform, and was not aware of any requirement that precludes employees from liking material posted on X.
He had claimed that the flawed disciplinary process had been "pre-ordained" by senior persons at X. He claimed that his suspension from his job, had been without justification, was in breach of fair procedures, and his contract of employment.
Mr Rodericks also disputed findings made against him by an investigator appointed by the company and argued that his employer did not provide him with documentation he claimed he was entitled to regarding the allegations against him.
Mr Rodericks also claimed that he was asked by the company if he was open to a "termination package" from his employment, or alternatively be the subject of a disciplinary process. He also claimed that he was asked to attend a separate meeting to discuss his possible redundancy. The claims were denied.
Separately, Mr Rodericks has brought defamation proceedings against Mr Musk. In that action, Mr Rodericks claims he was defamed and his reputation damaged by Mr Musk in a tweet published on the entrepreneur's personal twitter handle.
The allegedly defamatory tweet was published days after Mr Rodericks secured a temporary injunction restraining the firm from taking any further steps in a disciplinary process against him.
He also intends to sue X's Irish-based subsidiary, Twitter International Unlimited Company, over the alleged defamation.
Mr Rodericks was recently granted permission by the High Court to serve those proceedings on Mr Musk in the United States. Permission was required from the court because Mr Musk resides outside of the jurisdiction.
The action will be served on Mr Musk at an address at X Corp's offices at Market Street, San Francisco, California in the United States. Mr Musk is the ultimate majority shareholder, and Chief Technical Officer of X Corp.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
