Sean McGinty lost his employment tribunal case after a judge found the was entitled to sack the long-serving broadcaster for X posts that breached its impartiality rules. The ruling means the corporation’s dismissal of the former Radio Lancashire presenter and producer, who worked there for 22 years, stands.

He had brought claims for unfair dismissal and two disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 after being dismissed for gross misconduct on 25 July 2024. The tribunal found his claims were not well-founded and said the ’s decision was reasonable because of its rules on impartiality.

The case has drawn attention because McGinty had been signed off work in March 2023 with severe anxiety, then again in November 2023 after two mental health breakdowns, yet kept posting on X while off work despite warnings that he was breaching guidelines. The tribunal heard that some of those posts concerned transgender issues and Hamas, and that the corporation also relied on an email he sent to the production team of a Radio 5 Live presenter, whom he accused of “sociopathic” behaviour.

Employment Judge Dawn Shotter concluded there was no causal connection between his disability and the gross misconduct he was accused of. The written judgment said the “could not have contentious and sensitive biased posts made public by a journalist who would continue to do so into the future because he was not accepting he was wrong, strongly holding personal views that overrode the ’s restrictions on journalists.”

One part of the case did go against the. The tribunal found an occupational health report setting out McGinty’s ADHD diagnosis should have been passed by human resources to hearing manager Andrew Robson before a disciplinary hearing on 20 June 2024. But the appeal hearing, led by David Attfield, the ’s legal director and appeal hearing manager, was found to have put that procedural flaw right.

McGinty had also argued that the failed to provide support and adjustments when he returned to work, but that claim was dismissed too. The result leaves the ’s enforcement of its social media and editorial policy guidelines intact, and it answers the central dispute in the case: the tribunal said the dismissal was fair even if one earlier step in the process was handled badly.