His Complaint Says AI Reports Were the ‘Direct Basis’ for Firing Him.

Rodrigo Garcia’s complaint alleges that Samsara’s AI-powered system generated “distraction incident” reports that became the direct basis for his discipline and termination. A written warning over alleged cellphone use, the complaint says, preceded his firing by three days. In its demurrer, Samsara says how its clients use its technology “is not determined by Samsara.”

By William Douglas Baker

Founding Editor

Rodrigo Garcia’s complaint against Figueroa Tank Lines Inc. and Samsara, Inc. alleges that the written policy Figueroa gave its drivers described its dash cameras as intended primarily for accident investigation and safety purposes, not for routine monitoring of employee performance, not normally active, and subject to strict limits on access, retention and use. He filed the complaint in Contra Costa County Superior Court on January 9, 2026.

In practice, the complaint alleges, Figueroa and Samsara used the system differently — for continuous and covert monitoring of drivers through AI-assisted video analysis, generating what the complaint calls “distraction incidents” unrelated to any accident or external safety event, the very use the written policy said the cameras were not for, and, the complaint adds, with its AI flagging incidents, without meaningful human oversight or verification, for employer review.

The complaint’s account of the cameras

The system’s AI, the complaint says, identified conduct it characterized as distracted driving or a policy violation and automatically flagged the incidents for the employer’s review, a process the complaint alleges ran without meaningful human oversight or verification. Garcia also became aware, the complaint alleges, that in-cab footage, driver data and the AI-generated incident reports sat behind a portal open to coworkers and non-supervisory staff — and, the complaint says, the owner of Figueroa routinely stayed logged into the portal, leaving that data open to other employees without restriction.

The complaint’s central allegation goes further: it says Samsara’s AI-powered system independently analyzed video footage of Garcia, identified and flagged alleged policy violations without human review, and generated “distraction incident” reports that were used as the direct basis for his discipline and termination. Whether or not individual Samsara outputs were reviewed by Figueroa personnel, the complaint alleges, Samsara’s system generated the incident classifications, alerts and evaluative data Defendants relied upon as the basis for that discipline and termination. Figueroa Tank Lines’ answer, however, pleads a different account: that Garcia’s employment ended for legitimate business reasons, including violation of company safety policies while operating a commercial vehicle transporting hazardous materials. This piece adopts neither account.

What Samsara says about itself

Samsara’s own description of the product reads differently. Its FAQ page states that the company’s AI reviews, triages and prioritizes events, sending lower-risk events directly to drivers for self-review and escalating only the most severe cases to managers. It also states that when distraction is persistent or severe, the AI Dash Cam uploads a video event to the Safety Inbox, and safety managers receive email and text alerts to review it and prioritize coaching. The page describes its product generally; it names neither Figueroa Tank Lines nor Garcia.

In its own demurrer, Samsara states that how its clients, including Figueroa, use its technology “is not determined by Samsara,” and that Samsara has no insight or control over how its clients use the safety data it provides to them. The same filing states that even if the complaint’s allegations about its AI-powered system are taken as true, they do not establish that Samsara participated in, directed or controlled Figueroa’s decision to terminate him — and that the complaint does not allege Samsara reviewed his personnel file or investigated his conduct, because, in the filing’s words, “these facts do not exist.”

Three days in August

The complaint’s timeline: on or about August 1, 2025, Defendants issued Garcia a written warning alleging he had used a cellphone while driving and covered the in-cab camera. The warning was styled a “final warning,” the complaint says, stating that termination would occur only if the conduct happened again. Garcia refused to sign it, objecting that the surveillance practices behind the discipline violated his privacy rights; he said he intended to consult an attorney and left work that day, the complaint says. Three days later, on or about August 4, 2025, Defendants terminated his employment, claiming that his cellphone use and his refusal to sign the write-up justified immediate discharge, the complaint says. The complaint pleads a second account of why: that Defendants selectively enforced workplace policies against him because of his protected complaints about safety violations, meal and rest breaks, sexual harassment and privacy, and that his termination was retaliation for those complaints.

Figueroa Tank Lines’ answer pleads, as its first and fifth affirmative defenses, that Garcia’s employment was terminated for legitimate, non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory business reasons, including violation of company safety policies while operating a commercial vehicle transporting hazardous materials, in violation of company and regulatory standards, and, separately, that even if protected activity had been a contributing factor — which it denies — the company would have made the same employment decision anyway, for safety, regulatory and operational reasons independent of any alleged protected activity.

Garcia was reporting a different problem, the complaint also alleges. From early in his employment, he repeatedly reported safety issues with Figueroa’s fleet — tires with visible damage or slash marks, inadequate tire pressure and air leaks, missing antifreeze and overheating risk, and a failure to timely repair trucks placed out of service — to supervisors and management, including the company’s owner and his son. Management, the complaint alleges, dismissed his concerns, accused him of exaggerating the risks, pressured him to keep driving unsafe equipment, and told him to “suck it up.”

On the complaint’s account, the camera was chartered primarily for accident investigation and safety and was not normally active; instead, it was put to continuous monitoring, and the charter reversed into the very use it had ruled out — on our reading, what continuous use of the same tool looks like once it is switched on, left running, and never turned back off.

What the court has settled — and hasn’t

On August 14, 2026, the Contra Costa County Superior Court adopted its tentative ruling as the order of the court, sustaining Samsara’s demurrer to the complaint’s first, third and fourth causes of action — with leave to amend. The same order directs Samsara to prepare the order and serve notice of its entry, and gives Garcia 30 days from service of that notice to file an amended complaint.

Figueroa Tank Lines’ answer also states a general denial: it denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in Garcia’s complaint. And the written policy itself appears in this piece only as the complaint describes it: the complaint, as filed on January 9, 2026, neither attaches nor quotes it.

The Agentics read

Agentics reads this case through Digital Derangement Syndrome™ (DDS™), our diagnostic for AI systems that fail to recognize legitimate authority. The characteristic here, hedged, is Trust Transfer Failure: expertise in the physical world, never translated into machine-readable trust. Decision Exclusion contributes: information that should have reached a decision, and did not.

Where the argument stops

Every allegation above sits at the pleading stage; nothing here is a court’s finding of fact. Not read for this piece: Garcia’s opposition beyond its cover and table of contents; the court’s minute order beyond page 1 of 8; Figueroa Tank Lines’ answer beyond page 3; Samsara’s reply beyond its caption and the opening of its table of contents; the Notice of Ruling; and Garcia’s and Samsara’s case-management statements beyond page 1, and Figueroa Tank Lines’ beyond page 3 of 5. The record now holds three pleaded accounts of why Garcia’s employment ended — Samsara’s output as the direct basis, retaliation for complaints that ranged from safety to privacy, and the business reasons Figueroa Tank Lines’ answer pleads — and this piece adopts none. The mapping to Digital Derangement Syndrome™ above is our own editorial reading, not a finding by any court or party.