An employee was fired for using AI to assist with office work
The judge reminded that employees’ reasonable use of AI does not constitute a violation
As AI technology is deeply integrated into the workplace, it has become increasingly common to use AI tools to assist in office work. If employees use external AI tools to process internal company documents, does this violate corporate confidentiality regulations? Can the company terminate the labor contract on this basis? Recently, reporters learned from the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court that the court concluded a labor dispute case caused by AI-assisted office work, clarifying the boundary between the compliance of AI-assisted office use and the violation of confidentiality obligations.
In July 2024, in order to optimize the work process and improve the efficiency of PPT production and data analysis, Ms. Wu, who works as a legal counsel for a company, uploaded the self-organized and processed company audit problem data sheet to a third-party AI platform for office assistance on the recommendation of the company leader. In August of the same year, the company suddenly fired Ms. Wu for "serious violation of rules and regulations."
The company said that as an employee of the legal and compliance department, Ms. Wu had signed a confidentiality agreement, participated in information security training, and had a higher confidentiality obligation than ordinary employees. And it uploaded the company's internal audit documents to a third-party AI platform. The platform will collect and retain user data for model iteration. There is a significant risk of information leakage and theft by a third party, which is a serious violation of company regulations. Ms. Wu believed that the company's dismissal was illegal, so she filed a lawsuit in court.
Regarding this case, the court held that Ms. Wu’s use of third-party AI tools was recommended by the company’s leaders, and the core purpose was to assist in completing her job and optimizing work results, and she had no malicious intention to steal or leak company information. At the same time, the internal rules and regulations of the company involved in the case did not explicitly prohibit employees from using third-party AI tools to assist in office work, did not issue special compliance rules or operating specifications for AI office scenarios, and did not conduct any special training on the use of AI tools.
In addition, the court held that the company failed to provide evidence to prove that the documents Ms. Wu uploaded to the AI platform were core confidential information defined by law or system, nor could it prove that Ms. Wu’s relevant actions caused actual harmful consequences such as information leakage, economic losses, and reputational damage to the company.
In the end, the court determined that the company involved in the case had illegally terminated the labor relationship, and ruled in accordance with the law to revoke the "Notice of Termination of the Labor Contract" issued by the company to Ms. Wu, and both parties continued to perform the labor contract. At the same time, the court ordered the company to pay Ms. Wu the difference in year-end bonus caused by the illegal termination, etc. The judgment has taken effect.
"The reasonable use of AI by employees to improve quality and efficiency does not constitute a violation." The judge said that in the workplace, in order to improve work efficiency, employees' reasonable use of third-party AI tools to handle routine work without subjective malice, no actual risk of leakage, and no losses to the company does not constitute a violation of the company's rules and regulations, and companies are not allowed to terminate labor contracts on this basis. Facing the normalization trend of AI office, enterprises should abandon the "one-size-fits-all prohibition" management model and proactively improve the digital office compliance system.
Reporter Chen Dandan
"Worker Daily" (October 15, 2026, Page 06)
