Rome labour court upholds a graphic designer's dismissal in a reorganisation in which her remaining design work was done partly with AI tools
A graphic designer hired in March 2022 by a cybersecurity company was dismissed in May 2023 for a justified objective reason, which the company gave as an internal reorganisation and the suppression of her post to contain costs during an economic crisis. She challenged the dismissal, arguing that the reorganisation was a pretext and that her tasks had been redistributed to other workers, not eliminated. According to legal press reports of the judgment, the company said the graphic-design tasks were first absorbed by other staff and the residual work was then done partly with the support of artificial-intelligence tools, which the marketing manager used to produce graphics of adequate quality at lower cost and in less time. The labour section of the Tribunale di Roma (judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025) found a real crisis and reorganisation, no possibility of redeploying her, and upheld the dismissal. The reports say the court treated AI as one of the tools the company used to make its structure more efficient, not as an autonomous cause of the dismissal; a commentary in Giustizia Insieme calls the publicity around a first dismissal caused by AI out of proportion to the ruling. The judgment itself was not read, and whether it was appealed is not reported.
- AI system
- Unidentified image tool
- Occurred
- May 2023
- Reported
- 26 February 2026
- Event location
- Italy
- What the AI did
- Relation unknown
- Reported harm
- Professional HarmLegal Harm
- Whose AI use
- An institution’s AI use
- Setting
- Work · Justice
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 1 underlying account
- 5 claims: 5 reported. 4 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: Unnamed artificial-intelligence tools that, according to the judgment as reported, the company's marketing manager used to produce graphic content after the design post was suppressed
What Happened
The dismissal. A cybersecurity company hired a graphic designer in March 2022 to produce graphic material for its communications and later to manage its LinkedIn editorial plan. In May 2023 it dismissed her for a justified objective reason, citing an internal reorganisation and the suppression of her post as part of a wider effort to contain costs. The company described an economic and financial crisis in 2022 and 2023, including a change of corporate form, staff reductions and an eviction from its registered office, and a decision to concentrate on its core software and cyber-intelligence work.
The AI element. According to the reports of the judgment, the company said the design tasks were first absorbed by other staff and the residual activities were then carried out partly with the support of artificial-intelligence tools. lentepubblica reports that the court considered particularly relevant the marketing manager's use of AI tools that made it possible to produce graphic content of adequate quality while reducing time and costs, and placed this within the employer's freedom of economic initiative under article 41 of the Constitution.
The ruling. The worker argued that the reorganisation was a pretext, that her tasks had been redistributed rather than eliminated, and that redeployment had not been attempted. The Tribunale di Roma, labour section, in judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025, found a real crisis and reorganisation and that the remaining posts required software and cyber-intelligence skills she did not have, and upheld the dismissal. Sky TG24 and Giustizia Insieme report that the court treated AI as a support used by the company and not as an autonomous cause of the dismissal; the Giustizia Insieme commentary argues that the ruling applies ordinary dismissal law and that the coverage describing it as the first dismissal caused by AI overstated it. The judgment was not read for this record.
Reported harm
A graphic designer lost her job in a reorganisation in which, according to the reported judgment, remaining design work was done partly with AI tools, and a Rome labour court rejected her challenge.
How Harm Occurred
The employer suppressed the worker's post in a reorganisation in which, according to the judgment as reported, residual graphic work was done partly with AI tools; the court accepted the reorganisation as a lawful ground for dismissal.
Outcome
UnknownThe Tribunale di Roma, labour section (IV Sezione Lavoro), judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025, held the dismissal for a justified objective reason lawful and found that the company had shown a real reorganisation and the impossibility of redeploying the worker. Whether the judgment was appealed is not reported.
What remains unknown
- The text of judgment no. 9135/2025 and whether it was appealed.
- Which AI tools the marketing manager used.
- The name of the company and its location within Italy.
- How much of the designer's former work the AI tools took over, as against other staff.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The harm is the employer's dismissal of the designer in a reorganisation that, according to the judgment as reported, included moving residual graphic work partly to AI tools used by the marketing manager to produce graphics at lower cost and time; the court accepted that reorganisation and, according to the reports, described AI as a support and not an autonomous cause. No source says an AI system produced any output about the worker, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.
5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported A cybersecurity company dismissed a graphic designer it had hired in March 2022 in May 2023, citing an internal reorganisation and the suppression of her post to contain costs.
Causal attribution. The company's stated grounds as recorded in the judgment and relayed by legal press; one origin (the judgment).
- lentepubblica.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'La lavoratrice era stata assunta nel marzo 2022'; 'Nel maggio 2023 la società le intimava licenziamento per giustificato motivo oggettivo, motivandolo con una riorganizzazione interna e con la soppressione della posizione lavorativa'
- giustiziainsieme.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'una graphic designer, assunta nel 2022 da una società di cybersecurity, rimaneva vittima, un anno dopo, di una riorganizzazione interna dell’azienda'
Reported According to the judgment as reported, the design tasks were first absorbed by other staff and the residual work was then done partly with AI tools, which the marketing manager used to produce graphics of adequate quality at lower cost and in less time.
Causal attribution. The company's account and the evidence summarised from the judgment by legal press; one origin. The worker disputed that her tasks were eliminated.
- lentepubblica.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'Particolarmente rilevante, poi, è la circostanza relativa all’impiego di strumenti di intelligenza artificiale da parte del responsabile marketing, che consentivano di realizzare contenuti grafici con standard qualitativi adeguati, riducendo tempi e costi'
- giustiziainsieme.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'l’azienda specificava come le mansioni di graphic design fossero state prima assorbite da altre figure e poi svolte, per le attività residue, anche tramite supporto di strumenti di intelligenza artificiale'
Reported The worker challenged the dismissal, arguing that the reorganisation was a pretext and that her tasks had been redistributed to other workers rather than eliminated.
Causal attribution. The worker's case as summarised from the judgment by one outlet; one origin.
- lentepubblica.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'La dipendente impugnava il recesso, sostenendo che la riorganizzazione fosse meramente pretestuosa e che le sue mansioni non fossero state realmente eliminate, ma semplicemente redistribuite ad altri lavoratori'
Reported The labour section of the Tribunale di Roma, in judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025, held the dismissal lawful.
Causal attribution. The court's ruling as relayed by two outlets; the judgment text was not read; one origin.
- lentepubblica.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'A tale quesito ha risposto il Tribunale di Roma – IV Sezione Lavoro, con la sentenza n. 9135 del 19 novembre 2025'; 'Il giudice capitolino ha ritenuto legittimo il licenziamento di una graphic designer'
- tg24.sky.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'Lo ha stabilito il Tribunale di Roma con la sentenza n. 9135 del 19 novembre 2025, che ha riconosciuto legittimo, per “giustificato motivo oggettivo”, il licenziamento di una graphic designer'
Reported The reports say the court treated AI as one of the tools the company used to make its structure more efficient and not as an autonomous cause of the dismissal.
Causal attribution. The court's reasoning as relayed by a news outlet and a legal commentary; one origin (the judgment).
- tg24.sky.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'Nella motivazione della sentenza, l’Intelligenza artificiale non viene individuata come causa autonoma del licenziamento, ma come uno degli strumenti utilizzati dall’azienda per rendere più efficiente la propria struttura'
- giustiziainsieme.it(opens in new tab) supports · Italian
'L’intelligenza artificiale, sostiene il decidente, è utilizzata dall’azienda come “supporto”, non come causa autonoma'
Sources
3 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- lentepubblica.it, 2 March 2026: Rome labour court judgment 9135/2025 on dismissal and artificial intelligence(opens in new tab)
s1 · lentepubblica.it · News report · Italian · Inspected · 2 March 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source · Primary
- Sky TG24, 26 February 2026: dismissal of a worker in a reorganisation using AI tools ruled lawful by a Rome court(opens in new tab)
s2 · tg24.sky.it · News report · Italian · Inspected · 26 February 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
- Giustizia Insieme, 27 April 2026: AI and the lawfulness of dismissal, commentary on Tribunale di Roma judgment 9135/2025(opens in new tab)
s3 · giustiziainsieme.it · Other · Italian · Inspected · 27 April 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in Italian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. lentepubblica.it report on the judgment, 2 March 2026; HTTP 200, full text read. The judgment itself was not read. Applies to s1.
Read in Italian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Sky TG24 report, 26 February 2026, which says the decision was reported by the Corriere della Sera; HTTP 200, full text read. Applies to s2.
Read in Italian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Giustizia Insieme commentary by a lawyer on the judgment, 27 April 2026; PDF print version read in full (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). Applies to s3.
Event countries: Italy. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Italy.
The case was decided by the Tribunale di Roma under Italian dismissal law, and lentepubblica says the worker was employed under the Italian commerce and services collective agreement (CCNL Commercio Terziario), placing the employment and dismissal in Italy. The worker's residence is not stated.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-24: Published as a consequential-response case: a cybersecurity company dismissed a graphic designer in May 2023 in a reorganisation in which, according to the reported judgment, residual design work was done partly with AI tools, and a Rome labour court upheld the dismissal in judgment 9135/2025 while describing AI as a support and not an autonomous cause. All facts come from legal press reports of the judgment, which was not read.
People described
A graphic designer employed by a cybersecurity company from March 2022 until her dismissal in May 2023
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
The dismissed graphic designer, described in all three sources. No other dismissal is described.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). Rome labour court upholds a graphic designer's dismissal in a reorganisation in which her remaining design work was done partly with AI tools. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2023-rome-labour-court-upholds-graphic-designers-dismissal-in-reorganisation-where-remaining-design-work-moved-partly-to-ai-tools
BibTeX
@misc{2023_rome_labour_court_upholds_graphic_designers_dismissal_in_reorganisation_where_remaining_design_work_moved_partly_to_ai_tools,
title = {Rome labour court upholds a graphic designer's dismissal in a reorganisation in which her remaining design work was done partly with AI tools},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2023-rome-labour-court-upholds-graphic-designers-dismissal-in-reorganisation-where-remaining-design-work-moved-partly-to-ai-tools}
} Related cases
Massachusetts: fired teacher asks court to vacate an arbitration, saying the arbitrator improperly used AI tools to judge her AI-detector evidence
A kindergarten teacher at a public elementary school in Concord, Massachusetts, was dismissed in August 2025 after an unsatisfactory evaluation. In arbitration she argued that some of the principal's evaluations may have been produced with AI, relying on GPTZero estimates; the principal denied using AI beyond grammar checks. According to the arbitration decision as reported by The Concord Bridge, the arbitrator stated in an appendix that he used two AI tools, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5, to research whether GPTZero was reliable, checked some of the sources they supplied, concluded that GPTZero's results deserved no weight, and upheld the dismissal on 27 August 2026. On 28 September 2026 the teacher asked Suffolk Superior Court to vacate the decision, alleging that the AI-assisted research was an improper investigation outside the hearing record that the parties were not told about or allowed to challenge. These are allegations in a complaint; the district declined to comment and no court has ruled.
Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid
Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.
Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows
On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.
Paraíba, Brazil: judge fines a lawyer R$32,800 over hidden AI commands in a petition, G1 reports; state bar later suspends two lawyers in such cases
A judge of the 5th Mixed Court of Sousa, Paraíba, found hidden instructions aimed at artificial intelligence tools spread over seven pages of a lawyer's motion for clarification in a public-competition case in June 2026, including an order to ignore impartiality and a note calling it a test of whether the judge used only AI to decide. The judge fined the lawyer two penalties of R$16,400 (R$32,800 in total) for bad-faith litigation and contempt of the court's dignity, and referred the case to the Paraíba bar (OAB-PB) and the state prosecutors, G1 reports. The defence said the commands were not inserted deliberately and blamed an error in exporting a file prepared with AI support. An appeal judge refused to suspend the fines on 30 June, the trial judge kept them on reconsideration, and in July, G1 reports, the OAB-PB preventively suspended two lawyers after opening procedures into two hidden-command cases, one of them the Sousa case.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.