by Kady O’ Connell, Partner, Employment Law & Benefits Team at Mason Hayes & Curran LLP
The recent case of Fernando Oliveira v Ryanair DAC[1] serves as a stark reminder of the importance of relevant and accurate legal submissions and the dangers associated with overreliance on AI in drafting.
A Ryanair cabin crew worker brought a number of claims against Ryanair, alleging that he was discriminated against on the grounds of family status and race regarding his promotion, provision of training and conditions of employment. He also made an allegation of sexual harassment. He further alleged that he was victimised and harassed on foot of false allegations made by a colleague against him and that he was subject to unfair disciplinary actions.
Ryanair rejected the claims, arguing that they were frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail.
Use of AI
Ryanair suggested that the complainant’s submissions “may have been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence”. This was particularly evident where the case citations relied upon did not appear to give the outcome which the complainant alluded to. A specific example of this was the complainant’s reliance on citation: DEC-E2016-105. The complainant asserted that this case related to racial harassment. In reality, however, it was a claim for discriminatory dismissal and made no reference to harassment save by reference to another authority cited in the decision. The complainant asserted that €15,000 was awarded in that case, however, in reality, the case was dismissed.
At least two other of the cases referred to by the complainant appeared to be AI hallucinations. When this was raised by Ryanair, the complainant characterised the suggestion that he had used AI in drafting his submissions as “baseless”.
Adjudication Officer warning
The Adjudication Officer determined that none of the complainant’s complaints were well-founded. The Adjudication Officer stated that on initial inspection, it appeared that the complainant’s submissions had been a representative of the complainant, but closer inspection revealed this not to be the case. She noted that, initially the complainant rejected any use of AI in the drafting of his submissions, but that on day two of the hearing, he acknowledged that he may have used it.
The Adjudication Officer stated that she was not particularly concerned about whether the complainant used AI in drafting the submissions or not. However, she warned that both parties had an obligation “to ensure that their submissions are relevant and accurate and do not set out to mislead either the other party or the Adjudication Officer.”
The Adjudication Officer went on to criticise the complainant’s submissions for being “rife with citations that were not relevant, mis-quoted and in many instances, non-existent.” She noted that a considerable amount of Ryanair’s and the Adjudication Officer’s time was “wasted” trying to establish whether the citations provided by the complainant were legitimate or not.
She added that the complainant’s attempts to rely on hallucinated citations to support his claims, “can only be described as egregious and an abuse of process”.
Key takeaway
Although AI can be an effective tool for structural drafting and legal research, it is vital that a qualified legal professional critically review any AI-generated content to ensure accuracy and relevance.
[1] ADJ-00055225.
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.
About the author
Kady O’ Connell is a Partner on the Employment & Benefits Team at Mason Hayes & Curran. Her focus practice areas include both contentious and non-contentious employment law.
Kady regularly advises on day-to-day issues arising from the employment relationship. This includes the preparation and review of employment contracts and workplace policies, and advising on disciplinary investigations and dismissals. She also has particular experience in advising national and international companies on redundancy matters and exit strategy.
