Figure AI is an emerging U.S. robotics company developing general-purpose humanoid robots intended to perform physical tasks across industrial environments, including logistics, manufacturing, and retail, and, ultimately, within private homes.
Its models combine a human-like form factor capable of complex manipulation with a proprietary artificial intelligence system, Helix AI, designed to enable learning from demonstration and adaptive behavior in non-predefined situations.
Such an approach, premised on close physical interaction between humans and robots, entails heightened safety obligations.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff, hired as the company’s safety lead, raised several concerns regarding unaddressed risks associated with the robots under development. These included:
These concerns were communicated to senior leadership in writing, together with recommendations such as maintaining a certified emergency-stop (E-Stop) system and updating the company’s safety roadmap.
The complaint alleges that relations between the plaintiff and senior management deteriorated as he continued to escalate the safety issues.
Only a few days after his most detailed written warnings, particularly regarding the robot’s force capacity and the discontinuation of safety certification efforts, he was informed on 2 September 2025 that his employment was terminated due to a “change in direction.”
The temporal proximity between the protected disclosures and the adverse action is presented as a central element of the claims.
The lawsuit relies on three complementary legal bases under California law, all intended to protect employees who raise safety-related concerns.
First, California Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who disclose information they reasonably believe evidences a violation of law.
The plaintiff argues that his warnings regarding serious safety risks to employees, and the alleged removal of essential safety measures, fall squarely within this statutory protection.
Second, California Labor Code § 98.6 bars adverse actions taken in response to an employee’s internal complaint about working conditions. The statute includes a rebuttable presumption of retaliation when a termination occurs within 90 days of the protected activity, as is alleged here.
Finally, the complaint asserts a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, a common-law doctrine that protects employees dismissed for attempting to uphold fundamental public-interest obligations, including workplace safety and the prevention of serious physical harm.
Taken together, these grounds seek to establish that the termination was causally linked to the plaintiff’s protected disclosures.
The plaintiff seeks full compensatory relief, including recovery of lost wages and benefits, damages for reputational and career harm, statutory penalties under the applicable Labor Code provisions, punitive damages, and an award of attorneys’ fees and interest.
Conclusion and Advisory Note
The Grendel v. Figure AI case highlights the structural tensions inherent in the humanoid robotics industry, where rapid innovation and commercial pressures intersect with stringent safety and compliance requirements.
As humanoid robots increasingly operate in close proximity to humans, governance, documentation, and transparency around safety become essential.
