You have probably encountered an artificial intelligence notetaker by now. You join a virtual meeting and receive a notice that someone’s "AI assistant" or "personal AI notetaker" has joined too. Most people shrug and move on. A recently filed New Jersey lawsuit offers a reason to think twice before allowing that extra participant into every meeting, especially one involving the termination of an employee.
According to the complaint filed on August 12, 2026, in Waninger v. Marathon Engineering & Environmental Services Inc., the plaintiff worked for a New Jersey engineering company as an environmental scientist. She was called into a virtual meeting with three members of company management. The company used Fireflies.ai to record and take notes during that meeting.
Management terminated the employee’s employment and told her that the relationship was not "working out." She then left the virtual meeting, but management remained on the call. During the discussion that followed, the company’s director of engineering said that the company should look for "a relatively strapping young man" as the ideal replacement.
The AI notetaker then did what it had been configured to do: it emailed the terminated employee a link to a transcript that included management’s discussion after she left the meeting. She has now sued her former employer for gender discrimination.
What Employers Should Learn From This
Two things can be true. First, if the AI notetaker hadn’t sent the transcribed summary to the former employee, then the employer would not have found itself in a lawsuit. But, and more importantly, if management hadn’t made a hiring comment implicating a preference for candidates outside of the former employee’s protected class, then the employer would not have found itself in a lawsuit.
We don’t think this means employers should ban AI notetakers. They can be a useful way to retain and summarize important calls. However, employers should understand when these tools are recording, what they retain, and who receives the recording, transcript, or summary.
We do think that when managers are discussing hiring for any role, they should focus solely on the job requirements, candidate qualifications, and functions of the position, which the vast majority of times do not implicate a protected characteristic. Managers should be trained on how to communicate about job requirements and issued corrective action or coaching when manager discussions emphasize potentially discriminatory hiring preferences.
Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.