Are We Still Recording? Practical Takeaways for Employers Using AI Notetakers

AI notetakers can be a useful way to capture and summarize workplace discussions, but their use warrants attention to: (1) when recording ends; (2) who receives the resulting transcript or summary, and (3) whether the tool is appropriate for sensitive conversations. Allegations from a New Jersey lawsuit put these considerations into focus. 

In Waninger v. Marathon Engineering & Environmental Services Inc. (“Waninger”), filed in New Jersey state court in August 2026, a former employee sued Marathon alleging gender discrimination. According to the complaint, the employee had worked for Marathon for less than three months before her employment terminated during a video conference transcribed using an AI notetaker. After the meeting, she allegedly received a link to an AI-generated transcript, which included upper management’s discussion after she had left the call. The AI notetaker allegedly captured one member of upper management describing the “ideal person” to replace the plaintiff as “[h]opefully a relatively strapping young man.” The complaint seeks reinstatement, compensatory damages including back pay and front pay, punitive damages, interest, cost of the lawsuit, and attorneys’ fees. 

Although the allegations in Waninger remain unproven, the case raises practical questions about how AI notetakers capture and distribute workplace conversations. The case also highlights that the use of AI notetakers may not always be wise. The following considerations can help guide their use, particularly during sensitive discussions. 

• Pay Attention to When the AI Notetaker Stops Recording 

Treat the AI notetaker as an additional participant in the room. Before discussing sensitive topics after a meeting concludes, confirm that the AI notetaker has stopped and is no longer recording. 

Employers should not assume that the AI notetaker stops working when the formal meeting ends. A meeting may be over from the participants’ perspective, yet the AI notetaker may continue recording and summarizing conversations that occur afterward. In Waninger, the terminated employee left the meeting, but the AI notetaker continued doing exactly what it was designed to do: capture the conversation. As a result, offhand remarks (or summaries of those remarks) that followed the meeting became part of the AI-generated transcript, and those comments will likely be offered into evidence if Waninger is not amicably resolved.  

• Be Careful About Who Receives AI-Generated Meeting Transcripts or Summaries 

Review how meeting transcripts or summaries are generated, stored, and distributed, and ensure that access is limited to those with a legitimate business need. And recognize that meeting transcripts and summaries may be discoverable in litigation. 

Employers should carefully consider who receives AI-generated meeting transcripts and summaries. In Waninger, the post-meeting comments might never have become an issue if the AI-generated transcript had not been distributed to the terminated employee. Most employers would not share meeting notes with a terminated employee, let alone meeting notes reflecting candid discussions about personnel decisions. Yet, automated sharing settings, distribution lists, or user error can result in AI-generated transcripts and summaries being sent to unintended recipients. 

• Consider Whether AI Notetaking Is Appropriate for Sensitive Meetings 

For especially sensitive discussions, consider whether it may be preferable to conduct the meeting without an AI notetaker. 

Employers should consider not only the benefits but also the risks associated with using AI notetakers, especially in sensitive meetings such as those involving employee investigation, discipline, and termination. AI notetakers can offer clear benefits, including improved recordkeeping and efficiency. However, there are also inherent risks associated with using AI notetakers. AI-generated meeting transcripts and summaries may be incomplete, misleading, or inaccurate; they may be inadvertently shared with unintended recipients; or, as in Waninger, they may become the centerpiece to a future lawsuit.  

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services.  The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.  The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC.  Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.