Fired Trucker AI Monitoring Suit Adds Twist to Liability Debate

A California truck driver’s wrongful termination lawsuit naming a maker of AI-powered video surveillance portends a potential expansion of legal liability in companies’ use of automated employment decision tools.

Rodrigo Garcia claims his dismissal from Figueroa Tank Lines in August 2025 violated state laws banning whistleblower retaliation and infringed on privacy protections through invasive surveillance without consent. He sued Figueroa along with technology provider Samsara Inc., and his allegations that they share liability are scheduled for hearing next month.

Bias claims against providers of artificial intelligence tools used in hiring remain an emerging field of litigation, three years after the filing of a closely watched lawsuit against Workday Inc. Employment cases against providers of AI-assisted worker surveillance systems are rarer still, but a win for Garcia could inspire similar litigation where workers sue both their employer and a developer of decision-making tech.

“It’s not uncommon for plaintiffs to try to bring everyone into a lawsuit who has a potential deep pocket,” said Christopher T. Patrick, a principal with Jackson Lewis PC in Denver. “We may see more lawsuits with more defendants.”

In Garcia’s case, pending in state court in Contra Costa County, Calif., Samsara’s monitoring technology alerted Figueroa that Garcia used a cell phone while driving, which led to his firing, according to court documents. Garcia claims he was actually terminated in retaliation for repeatedly raising internal complaints, including safety concerns about underinflated tires and mechanical defects.

Samsara qualifies as an employer’s agent under California law, because it “performed the traditional employer function of monitoring and evaluating employee performance and generating the evidentiary basis for discipline,” Garcia’s attorneys argue in his complaint.

“Samsara doesn’t just provide a tool to the employer and then walk away,” said Taylor Markey, one of Garcia’s lawyers and a former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attorney. “Samsara is continuing to receive the output of this system and process it using their algorithm in order to identify these supposed distraction incidents.”

But Garcia hasn’t established any basis for finding it liable, Samsara says. The company’s motion for demurrer, which seeks to have the claims against it dismissed, is scheduled for a June 26 hearing.

“Complaint fails to allege that Samsara had any control over, or participated in any adverse employment decision relating to Plaintiff,” the company argued in its court brief. “The Complaint also fails to allege that Samsara had knowledge of any alleged protected activity engaged in by Plaintiff.”

Attorneys for Figueroa and Samsara didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Tech Providers as Agents

A federal court in San Francisco laid the groundwork in 2024 for finding makers of AI-powered decision tools liable for employment discrimination. In Mobley v. Workday Inc., Judge Rita F. Lin found Workday’s provision of hiring decision tools fit the definition of an agent acting on the employer’s behalf.

The EEOC under the Biden administration had argued months earlier that Workday should be treated as an agent. Markey, then an EEOC assistant regional attorney and part of its AI task force, worked on developing that brief.

In the few publicly known AI job bias claims, some plaintiffs focus solely on their employer, like those suing Sirius XM.

But a Colorado worker targeted both her employer Intuit Inc. and the provider of video interview technology, Hirevue Inc., in an EEOC charge. And job candidates sued only the tech provider in a case accusing Eightfold AI of scraping the internet for personal data in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

“Employers are going to be responsible for their employment decisions, full stop,” Patrick said. “The question becomes whether those who develop and sell the tools that enable those decisions may also be liable.”

It’s a question thorny enough for AI tech providers that Colorado lawmakers addressed it in their newest iteration of an algorithmic bias law. The measure calls for providers to share liability for discrimination claims with employers only if their technology “materially influenced” the allegedly biased decision and the employer used the technology as “intended, documented, marketed, advertised, configured, or contracted for by the developer.”

The liability issue also comes up when employers negotiate contracts with AI tool vendors, as some parties insert indemnity language, Patrick said. And there’s sometimes disagreement about the scope of an AI tool’s intended use.

“Vendors will often sell an input to consider, but not a decision, while employers may be looking to buy things that may be the basis for the decision,” he said.

Worker Surveillance

The growth and increasing sophistication of employee monitoring raise ample legal concerns for employers, including potential claims of disability discrimination, wage-and-hour violations, and anti-union retaliation, said Andrew R. Turnbull, a partner with Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Whether and when those claims might reach the technology providers is an open question for the courts—both for AI-aided hiring and monitoring tools.

“Any developer is going to argue: it’s not us, the employer made that decision,” Turnbull said. “It will be very fact dependent, in terms of how it’s used and deployed and how it’s marketed.”

In the Workday case, for example, Mobley argued the company’s technology automatically rejected dozens of his job applications. Workday disputes his claim, saying the decision on who advances in the hiring process rests with the employers using its tools.

In Garcia’s case, he argues Samsara fed more than just camera footage to his bosses.

“Samsara’s technology did not merely provide raw data to Figueroa; it rendered evaluative judgments about employee conduct that Figueroa adopted and relied upon in terminating Plaintiff,” his complaint said.

But Samsara says its tools are designed to improve driver safety and it isn’t responsible for employment decisions resulting from its data.

“How Samsara’s clients (including Figueroa) utilize Samsara’s technology is not determined by Samsara, nor does Samsara have insight or control over how its client use the safety data Samsara provides to them,” the company said in its brief.

The case is Garcia v. Figueroa Tank Lines Inc., Cal. Super. Ct., C26-00103.