Artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools are increasingly being marketed as a way to streamline workplace investigations: summarizing evidence, generating interview outlines, comparing witness statements, or even “detecting inconsistencies” in testimony. While these tools may appear to help investigators move faster, public employers should approach AI-assisted investigations with caution. California public agencies have unique obligations to ensure their investigations are thorough, impartial, accurate, and defensible under case law and statutory requirements.
AI tools can support certain administrative tasks, but improper reliance on them can jeopardize the validity of the investigation, expose the agency to claims of bias or inadequate fact-finding, and create potential Public Records Act and confidentiality concerns. This blog post outlines the emerging legal and practical risks, and provides guidance to help public employers evaluate whether, and how, AI should (or should not) be used.
AI in Workplace Investigations: What These Tools Claim to Do
AI tools can:
- Summarize large volumes of documents
- Generate interview questions based on allegations or policies
- Analyze transcripts for “inconsistencies”
- Suggest credibility assessments
- Identify potential timelines or patterns in evidence
Although these tools may seem efficient, they introduce significant legal and practical risks, especially in the context of public sector investigations.
Risk 1: Hallucinations, Inaccuracies, and Missing Nuance
AI tools are known to produce “hallucinations,” which occur when the system generates statements that appear authoritative but are factually incorrect.
In an investigation, even a minor factual distortion can:
- Undermine the credibility of the investigatory report
- Lead to incorrect findings
- Create inconsistencies that an attorney challenging the report may highlight
- Damage trust between the employer and employees
AI also frequently misses context, tone, or nuance — all critical to credibility determinations. AI cannot evaluate demeanor, motive, or subtle shifts in a witness’s explanation. It may summarize statements in a way that oversimplifies or distorts them.
Risk 2: Embedded Bias in AI Outputs
AI tools reflect the datasets they are trained on. For public employers, subject to constitutional and statutory nondiscrimination obligations including Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e), Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.) and due process requirements, AI-generated conclusions may inadvertently introduce bias into:
- Witness credibility assessments
- Evaluations of employee conduct
- Interpretation of language or cultural communication styles
- Discipline recommendations
Because California public employers must demonstrate impartiality in investigations, any bias reflected in AI outputs can compromise the investigation and expose the agency to legal challenge.
Risk 3: Confidentiality, Data Storage, and Public Records Risks
Workplace investigations often involve:
- Confidential personnel information
- Medical data (subject to the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Peace officer records (subject to Penal Code §832.7)
- Student information (for education agencies, under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Uploading investigation-related information into a third-party AI platform may violate confidentiality obligations, compromise privileged communications, or even trigger unintended disclosure requirements. Many generative AI tools store prompts, inputs, and outputs on external servers, and some reserve the right to use uploaded data to train or improve their models. As a result, sensitive details shared with an AI system may be retained, accessed by the vendor, or reproduced in future outputs, exposing an employer to privacy violations, discovery risks, and potential claims.
Risk 4: Ethical Concerns for Workplace Investigators
Over-reliance on AI risks blurring the line between the investigator’s independent judgment and the machine-generated suggestion.
Additionally, investigators must ensure that all work product is their own, that sources are verifiable, and that findings are based on actual evidence—not AI extrapolation. AI tools that fabricate facts or produce misleading summaries can put investigators at risk of failing these obligations if not carefully controlled and independently verified.
Key Takeaways for Public Employers
- AI should never replace human judgment in workplace investigations.
- Any AI-generated summary or analysis must be independently verified.
- Investigators should avoid uploading confidential personnel data into AI platforms unless the agency has vetted the tool’s security, privacy, and data-use policies.
- Because AI tools are not designed to evaluate human behavior or nuance, their conclusions about credibility should be viewed with caution especially when used for investigative decision-making. Agencies should develop internal policies on whether, and how, AI may be used in investigations.
Because AI tools are rapidly evolving while legal standards for investigations remain constant, public employers should:
- Review or update their workplace investigation policies.
- Evaluate whether AI use should be restricted or prohibited in investigative processes.
- Provide training to HR teams and investigators on the risks and obligations.
- Consult legal counsel before adopting or integrating AI tools into investigative workflows.
If your agency is considering the use of AI tools or needs guidance on investigation best practices please reach out to trusted legal counsel.