Blog - Month: April 2026
AI Deepfakes Fuel New Wave of Workplace Harassment
The rise of generative artificial intelligence is creating a troubling new category of workplace risk: employees using AI-generated “deepfakes” to harass, humiliate or retaliate against co-workers.
While harassment claims are nothing new, employers should be aware that this emerging form of misconduct is already appearing in lawsuits and is expected to grow as AI tools become cheaper, easier to use and more realistic. These incidents can involve sexually explicit fake videos, manipulated recordings depicting an employee violating company policy or altered audio suggesting someone made offensive or abusive remarks.
It’s important that employers understand this emerging form of workplace harassment.
Recent cases
In one recent case, a law enforcement officer alleged colleagues created and circulated an AI-generated video depicting him in a sexualized scenario meant to mock his sexual orientation. In another, a television meteorologist sued her employer after deepfake sexual images using her likeness were circulated and, she claimed, the issue was inadequately addressed by her employer.
Appellate courts have also upheld significant verdicts where employers failed to act after deepfake content spread within organizations.
Compounding the risk, the volume of deepfake content is exploding. Reports have found millions of deepfake files circulating online, with sexually explicit content making up the majority. As these tools become more accessible, misuse in the workplace is expected to increase.
Existing laws still apply
Harassment involving deepfakes is generally evaluated under the same standards as traditional workplace harassment claims. If the content targets an employee based on protected characteristics such as gender, race or sexual orientation — and contributes to a hostile work environment — employers may face liability under federal and state anti-discrimination laws if complaints are not handled appropriately.
Employers may also be exposed to claims involving:
- Defamation
- Invasion of privacy
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Violations of emerging state laws targeting nonconsensual deepfake content
Why it’s an issue
Most employee handbooks and anti-harassment policies were drafted before generative AI became widely available, so they do not explicitly address synthetic media or AI misuse.
As a result, employees may not clearly understand that this conduct is prohibited, and employers may have a harder time defending their policies if litigation arises.
What employers can do
- Update anti-harassment policies. Explicitly prohibit creating, sharing or possessing AI-generated content that is sexually explicit, defamatory or targets protected characteristics in your policies.
- Address off-duty conduct. Make it clear that behavior outside of work that affects the workplace can be subject to disciplinary action.
- Enhance investigation protocols. Treat digital content as potentially manipulated evidence. Verify its authenticity and document findings carefully.
- Train managers and employees. They should know how to recognize deepfake harassment and respond appropriately.
- Act promptly and consistently. When issues arise, apply discipline regardless of the employee’s role or tenure.
- Monitor legal developments. States continue to pass laws targeting deepfake misuse and Congress is considering broader regulation.
- Review insurance coverage. Call us to see if your employment practices liability or cyber policies address claims involving synthetic media. An employment practices liability insurance can cover litigation costs, including legal fees, discovery, settlements and judgments in harassment cases.
NLRB Reinstates 2020 Rule on Joint-Employer Liability
The National Labor Relations Board has formally reinstated its 2020 rule governing when a company is deemed a joint employer under labor law, loosening standards put in place during the Biden administration.
This pro-business shift will make it harder for workers to hold parent companies, franchisors or hiring entities liable for labor violations by contractors, subcontractors or franchisees.
Because a federal court had vacated a 2024 Biden-era rule, a public comment period was unnecessary, and the rule took effect Feb. 27, 2026.
A finding of joint employment can have significant consequences for companies under the National Labor Relations Act. Under established case law, each company found to be a joint employer by the NLRA may be held liable for the unfair labor practices of its co-employers.
Under the reinstated standard, merely holding a contractual right to control another entity’s workers or exercising indirect control such as setting safety standards is not enough to create a joint-employer relationship.
Types of cases affected:
- Franchise disputes: Cases where employees of a franchisee (e.g., a fast-food restaurant) seek to hold the franchisor responsible for unfair labor practices, wage disputes or bargaining.
- Staffing agency arrangements: Situations where workers hired through a staffing agency claim that the company they are assigned to is also their employer, particularly in disputes regarding discrimination or union organizing.
- Subcontractor relationships: Cases involving construction or logistics firms where a general contractor or larger client is accused of interfering with the labor rights of a subcontractor’s employees.
- Unfair labor practices: Cases where unions charge a parent company or hiring entity with violating rights will now be harder to prove unless the parent company or hiring entity directly controls hiring, firing or wages.
- Collective bargaining: Cases determining whether a large corporation must sit at the bargaining table with workers employed by a vendor or contractor.
The reinstated rule explained
Under the reinstated rule, a business must possess and exercise “substantial direct and immediate control” over at least one essential term and condition of employment of another employer’s staff to be a joint employer.
The rule defines substantial direct control as actions that have “a regular or continuous consequential effect” on several core aspects of a worker’s job. This includes the employer’s ability to:
- Hire or fire a worker,
- Supervise and control an employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a significant degree,
- Determine a worker’s rate and method of payment, and
- Maintain the employee’s employment records.
An employer does not have to meet all four factors to be considered a joint employer. Also, even when an employer exercises direct control over another employer’s workers, it will not be considered a joint employer if the control is exercised on a sporadic, isolated or de minimis basis.
The takeaway
This new rule will provide employers with clarity and certainty in instances where they may be considered joint employers, either when working with contractors or as franchisees.
However, employers still face some risk and should ensure that managers stay within the confines of the rules when establishing project goals and directing the work of third-party providers such as subcontractors and staffing agencies through direct supervision or task assignment. When dealing with these workers, managers should focus on what needs to be done rather than how the vendor’s employees perform it.
For franchisees, it will now be more difficult to pull franchisors into labor disputes and collective bargaining, which may prompt unions to focus on site-specific organizing.