The court suspected AI - and referred the attorney for possible discipline
A federal appeals court sided with an employer in a retaliation case - then sanctioned the employee's lawyer over non-existent, likely AI-generated case citations.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Florida Department of Corrections on July 10, 2026, closing out a former employee's retaliation claims against the state agency that once employed him.
The worker, represented by counsel, had sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He said that filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and later asking for a disability accommodation, had led to his demotion and termination.
The court was not persuaded. Reviewing the record, the panel found he could not show that his EEOC complaint "caused his demotion and termination or that he was disciplined for any reason apart from his disciplinary infractions and excessive absenteeism." The same standards ended his ADA claim.
For HR readers, the case turned on causation. The employee could not tie his demotion and termination to his EEOC complaint or accommodation request rather than to his documented discipline and absenteeism.
Then the case took an unusual turn. The corrections department had asked the court to sanction the employee's lawyer and to strike parts of his reply brief, arguing that it cited "two non-existent court opinions and at least five...
A video is being widely circulated on social media with sensational claims that “Goodbye Islam in Iran,” alleging that over ten tons of Qurans were thrown into a river and more than 50,000 mosques...