Employment tribunal refuses interim relief to manager who says he was fired for raising concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI; employer cites his AI use
A Head of Customer Service Platform at Apertum Online Ltd, a consumer internet company whose customer-service system passed customer request forms to a large language model, was dismissed on 11 March 2026 during his probation, two months after starting. According to an employment tribunal decision of 23 April 2026, he had told his manager in February that customers' personal data was being sent to OpenAI within support tickets and set out his concerns in a document; the chief technical officer called the document pure AI slop in a chat and said he would fire him. The employer says it dismissed him for underperformance, citing his reliance on AI to generate documents; he says he was dismissed for his disclosures. The judge refused interim relief, finding he had not shown a pretty good chance of success on the reason for dismissal while noting a significant coincidence in timing. No findings of fact were made, and the claim awaits a final hearing.
- AI system
- Unidentified OpenAI model (reported)
- Occurred
- 11 Mar 2026
- Reported
- 28 May 2026
- Event location
- Unknown
- What the AI did
- Relation unknown
- Reported harm
- Professional HarmLegal Harm
- Whose AI use
- An institution’s AI use · AI role unknown
- Setting
- Work · Justice · Privacy
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 1 source
- 5 claims: 1 documented, 1 disputed, 3 reported. 4 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: A large language model customer-service system to which the employer's platform passed customer request forms; the claimant said customers' personal data went to OpenAI. The employer also cites the claimant's use of unnamed AI tools to generate documents
What Happened
The role. The claimant joined Apertum Online Ltd on 5 January 2026 as Head of Customer Service Platform (Business to Business). According to the tribunal's summary, the company's customer-service system sent customer request forms to a large language model that answered them, and his job was to turn that system into a product for other businesses.
The concerns. On 10 February 2026 he told his manager, according to a transcript quoted in the decision, that there was a fundamental issue with the company sending customers' personal data to OpenAI within support tickets, and that chat logs might need to be stored in particular countries. After a meeting with the chief executive he set out his concerns and proposals in a long document, which also went to the chief technical officer.
The response. In a chat on about 20 February that the claimant was not part of, the chief technical officer called the document pure AI slop and said he would fire him from the company. On 23 February he told the claimant that his updates came across as AI-generated and that he was over-focused on legal and compliance matters. The claimant was moved to a role in the casino sector and was dismissed on 11 March 2026, during his probation.
The dispute. The employer says he consistently underperformed, citing his reliance on AI to generate documents, poor written communication, lack of sector knowledge and inability to adapt to a start-up, and denies that his concerns were protected disclosures or the reason for dismissal. It says compliance measures were already in place. The claimant says he was dismissed for the disclosures and that no performance issue had been raised before.
The ruling. On 23 April 2026 the judge refused interim relief. The judge considered he had a pretty good chance of showing a qualifying disclosure and a reasonable belief, noted a significant coincidence in timing, and found some cogent evidence capable of supporting the employer's reasons; on the reason for dismissal he did not meet the interim-relief threshold. The judge made no findings of fact.
Reported harm
The claimant was dismissed during probation, and his application for interim reinstatement was refused; he says the dismissal was for his concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI, and the employer cites his reliance on AI to generate documents.
How Harm Occurred
The claimant raised data-protection concerns about the employer's AI customer-service system sending customers' personal data to OpenAI; the employer dismissed him during probation, giving reasons that include his reliance on AI to generate documents, while he says the reason was his disclosures.
Outcome
OngoingThe employment tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief on 23 April 2026 and made no order for reinstatement, re-engagement or continuation of the contract. The judge said the claimant had reasonable prospects but had not reached the higher interim-relief threshold, and made no findings of fact. The automatically unfair dismissal claim awaits a final hearing; no later outcome was found.
What remains unknown
- Whether the final hearing has taken place and what it decided about the reason for dismissal.
- Whether the claimant used AI to write the documents the employer criticised.
- Whether customers' personal data was in fact sent to OpenAI without adequate safeguards; the employer says compliance measures were in place.
- Where the claimant worked and the financial consequences of the dismissal.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The tribunal decision records that the employer's customer-service system passed customer request forms to a large language model, that the claimant raised concerns about customers' personal data being sent to OpenAI within support tickets, and that the employer's stated reasons for dismissing him include his reliance on AI to generate documents. The dismissal is a response to AI in both parties' accounts. No output of an AI system toward the claimant is described, and whether he used AI to write his documents is the employer's assertion.
5 claims: 1 documented, 1 disputed, 3 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported According to the tribunal's summary, the claimant began work at the company on 5 January 2026 as Head of Customer Service Platform (Business to Business), leading the conversion of a customer-service system that passed customer request forms to a large language model into a product for other businesses, and was dismissed on 11 March 2026, during his probation period.
Causal attribution. Background recited by the judge from the parties' material, with no findings of fact made; the dismissal date is not disputed in the decision; reported.
- assets.publishing.service.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 5 January 2026. He was dismissed on 11 March 2026.'; 'which was used to deal with customer service requests by submitting electronic forms completed by the customer to a large language model system which would respond to the requests using Artificial Intelligence.'; 'The Claimant was engaged in a senior role – Head of Customer Service Platform – Business to Business.'; 'On 11 March 2026 the Claimant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect, two months into his employment and during his probation period.'
Reported According to the transcript quoted in the decision, on 10 February 2026 the claimant told his manager that there was a fundamental issue with the company sending customers' personal data to OpenAI within support tickets and that chat logs might need to be stored in particular countries; he later set out his concerns in a document that also went to the chief technical officer.
Causal attribution. The claimant's words as transcribed and the judge's summary of the documents; the respondent says compliance measures were already in place; reported.
- assets.publishing.service.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'with his concerns on 10 February 2026.'; 'there seems to be a pretty fundamental issue with the fact that we send PII to open AI within the support tickets'; 'the Claimant became concerned about the way in which personal data provided by customers on their customer service request forms was handled.'; 'Following this, the Claimant produced a lengthy document setting out his concerns and his proposals for resolution.'
Reported According to a chat transcript quoted in the decision, on about 20 February 2026 the chief technical officer called the document pure AI slop and said he would fire the claimant from the company; he later told the claimant that his updates came across as AI-generated and that he was over-focused on legal and compliance matters; the claimant was then moved to a role in the casino sector before being dismissed.
Causal attribution. Messages quoted from documents placed before the tribunal; the judge notes the key paragraph was taken somewhat out of context; reported.
- assets.publishing.service.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'received that document on around 20 February 2026 and was not impressed with what he saw.'; 'This is pure AI slop. I’d fire him from Sporty as a whole.'; 'He expressed concerns that the Claimant’s updates come across as AI-generated, heavy on buzzwords but “shallow/vapid, demonstrating a lack of deeper thinking on the subject”.'; 'I also think you’re significantly over-focused on legal, compliance, and bureaucracy rather than getting customers onboard'; 'he was to be moved to try a role within the business’s casino sector'
Disputed The employer says it dismissed the claimant because he consistently underperformed, citing his reliance on AI to generate documents, poor written communication, lack of sector knowledge and inability to adapt to a start-up; the claimant says the reason was his disclosures about personal-data handling, and says no performance issue had been raised before he sent his document.
Causal attribution. The parties' opposing positions on the reason for dismissal, as recorded by the judge; unresolved until a final hearing; disputed.
- assets.publishing.service.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'The Respondent’s position is that the reason for dismissal is that the Claimant had “consistently underperformed”, in particular citing his reliance on AI to generate documents, resulting in poor written communication, his lack of sector specific knowledge, and his inability to adapt to a start-up environment.'; 'The Respondent denies that the alleged protected disclosures were in fact protected disclosures, or that this was the reason for dismissal.'; 'The Claimant counters that no issue had been raised about his performance prior to him sending the document'
Documented On 23 April 2026 the employment judge dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief and made no order for reinstatement, re-engagement or continuation of his contract, finding he had not shown a pretty good chance of establishing that his disclosures were the reason for dismissal, while noting a significant coincidence in timing and some cogent evidence capable of supporting the employer's reasons; the judge made no findings of fact.
Causal attribution. The ruling and the judge's stated assessment are directly established by the judgment itself; documented.
- assets.publishing.service.gov.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'Accordingly I dismiss the Claimant’s application and make no order for interim relief.'; 'There appears to be a significant coincidence in timing, in that the dismissal came swiftly after the Claimant’s concerns were escalated'; 'I consider that there does appear to be some cogent evidence, at this preliminary stage and for today’s purposes, capable of supporting the purported reasons for the dismissal advanced by the Respondent.'; 'I should note that I have not made any findings of fact'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- Employment Tribunal, case 6009171/2026, judgment on application for interim relief, 23 April 2026(opens in new tab)
s1 · assets.publishing.service.gov.uk · Court record · English · Inspected · 23 April 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in full in English on 2026-10-22 (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). Judgment on an application for interim relief, Employment Tribunal case 6009171/2026, heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 23 April 2026 and dated the same day; published on GOV.UK on 28 May 2026. The judge states that no findings of fact were made. Applies to s1.
Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: United Kingdom.
The claim was heard by an employment tribunal at the East London Hearing Centre under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The decision describes the employer as a global consumer internet and media company and does not say where the claimant worked, so the event country is left unknown.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-22: Published as a consequential response to AI: an employment tribunal decision records that a manager was dismissed during probation after raising concerns that customers' personal data was sent to OpenAI, that the employer cites his reliance on AI to generate documents, and that interim relief was refused; the reason for dismissal is disputed and no findings of fact were made.
People described
A manager leading the employer's AI customer-service product who was dismissed during probation after raising data-protection concerns about it
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
One person: the claimant, whose dismissal on 11 March 2026 and refused interim-relief application are recorded in the decision. Customers whose data was sent to the language model are not counted; no harm to them is reported.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Tags
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). Employment tribunal refuses interim relief to manager who says he was fired for raising concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI; employer cites his AI use. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-employment-tribunal-refuses-interim-relief-to-manager-dismissed-after-raising-concerns-about-customer-data-sent-to-openai
BibTeX
@misc{2026_employment_tribunal_refuses_interim_relief_to_manager_dismissed_after_raising_concerns_about_customer_data_sent_to_openai,
title = {Employment tribunal refuses interim relief to manager who says he was fired for raising concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI; employer cites his AI use},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-employment-tribunal-refuses-interim-relief-to-manager-dismissed-after-raising-concerns-about-customer-data-sent-to-openai}
} Related cases
Washington, Illinois: Snapchat flagged a student teacher's private joke to the FBI; she was arrested at her school and lost her placement
On 29 January 2025, a 22-year-old student teacher at a District 50 elementary school in Washington, Illinois, vented in a private Snapchat group chat with her boyfriend and two roommates after a third-grade student turned off her computer mid lesson-plan, asking whether she should 'shoot the child or just the whole school' (per sheriff's reports). Snapchat's systems flagged the message and warned the FBI, which notified the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office at 1:06 p.m. Deputies interviewed her at the school, confirmed she sent it as a joke, searched her phone and belongings with her consent and found no weapons, and arrested her on a disorderly conduct charge; they concluded she had spoken out of 'exasperation' with no intent to harm and no threat to the school. The district told parents she would not return to complete her educational assignment.
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.
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.