Employers nationwide have a new kind of employee in the workplace: the GPT employee. These employees are empowered by the latest and greatest version of free and publicly available generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), which comes fully loaded with buzzwords but often little substance. GPT employees also like to fancy themselves as amateur lawyers lurking in the shadows, although their work product is anything but discrete and often not accurate.

With their newly discovered vocabulary (which sounds nothing like the employee) and the telltale formatting, these GPT employees are beginning to all sound alike in a predictable, template-driven way. They are also keeping HR professionals busier than ever with a range of matters, both inside (e.g., accommodation requests and internal complaints) and outside (e.g., demand letters, EEOC charges, and lawsuits) the workplace.

Although increased awareness of employee rights is not inherently problematic, it is significantly altering the way workplace concerns are escalated by employees. AI is often smart enough to be dangerous, but not smarter than the seasoned human resources professional. An employer’s best defense against these GPT employees is to maintain solid HR policies and practices.

Inside the Workplace

Within the workplace, we have seen employees leverage AI in two primary areas: internal complaints and accommodation requests.

Internal Complaints: When prompted to “[d]raft a complaint to send to my employer about unfair treatment that I have experienced,” ChatGPT, Esq., prepares a template letter with key buzzwords (e.g., “discrimination,” “discriminatory treatment,” “relevant employment laws,”) and placeholders for the employee to fill in the specifics of particular incidents, the impact of those incidents on the employee’s work, the connection to a protected characteristic, and previous unsuccessful attempts by the employee to resolve the matter. While typically lacking detail, the template letter provides the necessary items to prompt an obligation for the employer to initiate an investigation (or risk issues down the road in litigation).

Of course, AI did not suddenly make internal complaints any more meritorious than before. As employers are aware, many employee complaints involve simple interpersonal issues or operational disagreements, not illegal discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. AI has, however, equipped employees with the polished language that they previously lacked to force employers to act.

Accommodation Requests: Similarly, when prompted to “[d]raft an accommodation request to my employer for autism/neurodivergence,” ChatGPT again prepares a template letter with key buzzwords (e.g., “ADA,” “reasonable workplace accommodations,” “related to my disability”) and even suggests potential accommodations: flexible scheduling, written instructions/checklists for complex tasks, advance notice of meetings, and “clear and direct” communication regarding tasks and expectations.

Unsurprisingly, these proposed accommodations suggested by ChatGPT are the most common we have seen in recent months (and frequently they are in the same order and with the same verbiage). While the requested accommodation(s) may be generic and computer-generated, an employer must still engage in the interactive process to explore whether any accommodations are appropriate for both the individual employee and the realities of their work.

Out of the Workplace and Into the Courtroom

With rising frequency, aggrieved employees are also retaining AI as their legal counsel. Whether it be a pre-litigation demand letter, an EEOC charge, a complaint, or a motion, we have seen an uptick in these AI-assisted pro se plaintiffs across the country as employees are emboldened to file lawsuits without retaining a real lawyer.

Combined with economic uncertainty and increasing numbers of layoffs, the agility of GPT employees is likely contributing to an increase in employment litigation. These pro se plaintiffs have also exhibited a propensity to inundate employers with dozens of motions. AI-generated filings appear legally sophisticated on their face, but they frequently lack any legal authority (e.g., case law, statutory citations, etc.) and adequate factual support necessary to prevail in court. Regardless, employers are still forced to spend time and money opposing the filing or waive arguments in defense.

GPT employees also tend to be more adventurous (frequently to a fault) with their legal claims. No longer do pro se employees appear to be confined to claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Title VII. They are now bringing a laundry list of additional claims, including promissory estoppel claims and other common-law tort claims (e.g., negligent infliction of emotional distress) with increasing frequency. These claims often lack merit and may even be subject to dismissal at the pleadings stage. Nonetheless, employers are again forced to respond and incur the related time and expense associated with litigation.

Key Takeaways

The rise of the GPT employee should not be met with fear. Employers must simply be prepared. As always, solid HR policies and practices are more important than ever. Employers should respond to internal complaints and accommodation requests as they always have—consistency, documentation, and manager training. And when the demands start flying from GPT employees, timely legal advice is key to preserving defenses and ensuring the most cost-effective approach to AI-assisted litigation.