January 2026: When ChatGPT Writes the Complaint: What Employers and Investigators Need to Know
- sasha18324
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
This month, I’m revisiting AI. Not because it’s trendy, but because how people are using and misusing it is changing fast. What felt theoretical six months ago is now showing up in real workplace disputes.
Recently, while catching up on non-urgent emails that piled up during the busy weeks of December, I noticed a flurry of discussion among workplace investigators about employees using AI to draft complaints. The concerns were familiar: complaints that were long, repetitive, filled with legal buzzwords, and yet light on actual examples of what allegedly happened.
Some investigators wondered whether employers should prohibit employees from using AI to generate complaints altogether. Others took a very different view, pointing out that AI can be an important accessibility tool, particularly for employees with disabilities, employees who are not proficient in English, or employees who simply don’t know how to articulate what they’re experiencing. One investigator noted that AI can even serve as an educational tool, helping employees understand workplace policies or the types of issues HR typically asks about.
At the same time, several investigators raised a practical concern I see regularly: AI-generated complaints often sound “legal,” but when you dig in, there’s very little substance behind the language. Words like harassment, retaliation, or hostile work environment may appear repeatedly, but the complaint doesn’t explain who did what, when it happened, or how it actually affected the employee.
That matters.
No matter how a complaint is drafted – by the employee alone, with a lawyer, or with the help of AI – the employee is still responsible for its content. From an investigation standpoint, credibility is key. When a complaint contains internal inconsistencies, vague accusations, or details that later turn out to be inaccurate or exaggerated, that credibility can take a hit. AI doesn’t change that reality.
So where does that leave employers?
Banning AI outright is tempting, but likely unrealistic and possibly counterproductive. AI is already embedded in how people write emails, prepare resumes, and organize their thoughts. Trying to police whether an employee used AI to draft a complaint may distract from the real issue: understanding what the employee is actually alleging and whether it can be substantiated.
A more productive approach may be to focus less on how the complaint was written and more on what happens next. That includes:
Asking thoughtful follow-up questions to clarify vague or conclusory statements
Making clear that specifics matter: dates, witnesses, examples, and context
Reinforcing that honesty and accuracy are critical, regardless of the drafting tool used
As for policies, employers may want to think about whether existing policies (e.g., cooperation in investigations and misuse of company technology) already cover the real risks without singling out AI in a way that feels reactionary or exclusionary.
AI isn’t inherently good or bad. It’s a tool. And like any tool, our understanding and knowledge on how best to work with AI will continue to revolve.
This is exactly the kind of practical, on-the-ground issues we will be unpacking at a panel I’m leading in February, “AI in the Trenches: Practical Applications for Labor & Employment Lawyers & Some Ethical Considerations.” This won’t be a doom-and-gloom discussion. It will be a how-to conversation about how AI is actually showing up in employment litigation and workplace investigations, where the real risks are, and how to use these tools thoughtfully and ethically.
More details coming soon! But, if there’s one takeaway for now, it’s this: AI is here to stay. The challenge isn’t stopping it. The challenge is learning how to work with it smartly.
