Can an AI Monitoring Company Share Liability for a Retaliatory Firing?
/
In recent news, Garcia, a California fuel truck driver for Figueroa Tank Lines, filed a California lawsuit alleging he was wrongfully fired after reporting safety problems and that his employer relied on an AI-powered camera system to justify the firing.
Case: Rodrigo Garcia v. Figueroa Tank Lines Inc., a California Corporation; Samsara, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive
Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court
Case No.: C26-00103
Rodrigo Garcia sued Figueroa Tank Lines and Samsara, Inc. (the company behind the monitoring technology). Garcia filed the complaint in Contra Costa County Superior Court. The case asks whether a technology vendor can share responsibility when its system contributes to a firing.
What Does Rodrigo Garcia Allege in His Lawsuit?
According to CDL Life’s account of the complaint, Figueroa Tank Lines hired Garcia as a fuel truck driver on December 1, 2024. Within a few months, he says, he began reporting equipment problems to supervisors and managers. The list includes damaged tires, low tire pressure and air leaks, missing antifreeze that risked overheating, mechanical defects that made trucks unsafe, and trucks left in service that should have been repaired. He alleges managers told him he was exaggerating the risks and pressured him to keep driving.
Garcia was fired on August 4, 2025, three days after receiving a written warning that alleged he used a cell phone while driving and covered the in-cab camera. He says he refused to sign the write-up. Bloomberg Law reported that, according to court documents, Samsara’s technology alerted Figueroa to the phone use, and that this led to the firing. Garcia says the real reason was retaliation for his safety complaints.
The plaintiff included additional complaints regarding the workplace and Garcia’s employment:
Missed meal and rest break violations due to 12 to 14 hour shifts
Intentional misrepresentation of the pay rate
Pornographic calendars openly displayed in company vehicles (complaints to managers were allegedly brushed off with replies about working in a “male-dominated” industry with no following investigation)
How Would Cameras be Used to Terminate an Employee?
Garcia alleges Figueroa installed forward-facing and driver-facing cameras in May 2025, telling drivers the purpose was safety and accident investigation with no mention of using the cameras for routine performance monitoring. However, Garcia alleges that in reality, the company used the new camera system for continuous, covert monitoring, generating so-called distraction incidents unrelated to any accident.
He further alleges that multiple people could access footage, driver data, and AI-generated incident reports through a shared portal. That information reportedly included license numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, and video of drivers inside their trucks. Garcia says this violated his privacy rights.
How Are Figueroa Tank Lines and Samsara Responding?
Samsara denies that it employed Garcia or performed employer functions such as paying him, setting his duties, supervising his work, or disciplining or firing him. It asked the court to dismiss the claims against it through a demurrer, arguing that the complaint does not allege Samsara controlled or took part in any employment decision about Garcia or knew about his complaints.
Garcia’s attorneys take the opposite view. They argue Samsara acts as an agent of the employer under California law because it performed the traditional employer function of monitoring employee performance and producing the evidence used for discipline.
What Has the Court Decided So Far?
Garcia has asked for a jury trial and seeks compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court has not decided whether Figueroa unlawfully retaliated against Garcia, but it has addressed Garcia’s attempt to hold Samsara liable. In August 2026, the court sustained Samsara’s demurrer to the original complaint and allowed Garcia an opportunity to amend. A demurrer tests whether the pleaded allegations are legally sufficient; it does not determine whether Garcia’s factual allegations are true. The case is still pending.
Why Does the Garcia Case Matter to California Employees?
The Garcia case raises questions and raises themes that apply to California workers statewide: safety complaints, surveillance, and discipline after a report. California law protects employees who report unsafe conditions or suspected violations of law, and it prohibits firing employees in retaliation for reporting workplace violations or safety concerns.
Garcia’s allegations regarding the company’s use of the “automated monitoring” add a new wrinkle to the issue. Cameras, GPS, and AI scoring can produce an objective-looking record, but people still decide how to present it and where to apply it. A worker disciplined shortly after making a complaint can fairly ask whether the employer treated the same data the same way before the complaint. Garcia's attempt to hold the technology vendor responsible illustrates an emerging legal question: under what circumstances, if any, can a provider of automated workplace-monitoring technology share liability for employment decisions made using its systems?
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can an employee be fired for reporting unsafe equipment at work?
A: California law prohibits retaliation against employees who report unsafe conditions or suspected violations of the law. If a worker believes they were fired for reporting a legal violation or safety concern, they should contact an experienced employment law attorney.
Q: Can my employer use cameras to monitor me at work?
A: Often in some form, but privacy laws, notice to employees, and how the footage is used all matter. Whether a particular practice is lawful depends on the facts.
Q: Can a technology company be sued along with an employer?
A: Depending on the company's role and the legal theory asserted, it may be possible to sue a technology company along with an employer. Garcia alleged that Samsara acted as Figueroa's agent by monitoring and evaluating workers and generating information used for discipline. Samsara disputed that characterization. In August 2026, the court sustained Samsara's demurrer to Garcia's original complaint while allowing him an opportunity to amend, so the broader issue has not been finally resolved.
Q: What should I do if I am disciplined after reporting a problem?
A: Write down the dates of your reports and who received them, keep copies of any write-ups and messages, and speak with an employment attorney before you respond if you are unsure.
Do you have questions about a whistleblower retaliation claim in California? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, and Los Angeles.
