What happened
Robert Gruendel joined Figure AI, Inc. as Principal Robotic Safety Engineer on October 7, 2024. He was terminated on September 2, 2025. On November 21, 2025, Gruendel filed a wrongful-termination and whistleblower-retaliation lawsuit against Figure AI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 5:25-cv-10094), alleging he was fired days after delivering what he described as his most direct and documented safety complaints to date, and that the company had deprioritized his safety roadmap ahead of a funding round that valued Figure at 39 billion dollars. The complaint alleges that internal impact testing showed Figure's humanoid robots could generate forces exceeding those required to fracture an adult skull, and cites an incident in which a malfunctioning robot allegedly left a gash in a stainless-steel refrigerator door. A Figure spokesperson told CNBC that Gruendel was terminated for poor performance and called his allegations falsehoods the company would discredit in court. On January 16, 2026, Figure filed a formal answer and counterclaims against Gruendel. Court records indicate the termination was described in the litigation record as resulting from a "change in business direction" - a formulation that differs materially from the company's public statement; the public record does not establish whether these represent inconsistent explanations or different aspects of the company's position. A July 6, 2026 discovery order addressed a dispute over documents Gruendel retained from his former employer, with the court assigning Figure responsibility for reviewing and producing responsive material from that collection. The case remains in active litigation, with no judicial finding on the safety allegations or the reason for termination.
Evidentiary Assessment - 9 questions
What decision failed?
No governance failure has been judicially established. Gruendel alleges that Figure deprioritized documented safety concerns in favor of commercial velocity ahead of a funding round; Figure disputes the characterization and has filed counterclaims contesting his allegations.
What information was available at the time?
According to the complaint, internal impact testing had measured forces from the robot's hand or arm that Gruendel alleges exceeded thresholds associated with skull fracture, alongside a specific malfunction incident involving damage to a refrigerator door. Figure has not confirmed the specific technical findings described in the complaint.
Which constraints were active?
Not established from public sources. Neither party's public filings describe, in detail, what safety protocols, testing thresholds, or human-in-the-loop requirements were formally in place for the robot models at issue during the period covered by the complaint.
Could the failure be reproduced?
Cannot be independently determined from available public evidence. The specific test conditions behind the cited impact-force findings, and whether they reflect normal operating conditions or extreme testing scenarios, have not been made public.
Could an independent reviewer reconstruct the decision months later?
Partially, and primarily through the discovery process now underway. A July 2026 order addressed a dispute over internal documents Gruendel retained after his departure, with the court directing Figure to review and produce responsive material - suggesting that a fuller reconstruction of the company's internal safety deliberations may become possible only through litigation, not from information available to an outside observer today.
What evidence survives?
The public docket (complaint, answer, and counterclaims) in the Northern District of California, Figure's public statement to CNBC, and the July 2026 discovery order addressing the disputed document collection.
What remains unknowable?
Whether Figure in fact deprioritized safety considerations as alleged; the true reason for Gruendel's termination, given the materially different formulations in the public statement and the litigation record; and what the disputed internal documents, once reviewed and potentially produced, will show.
Which governance layer failed?
Safety & Boundary Controls - Primary Governance Layer Under Examination. Two incompatible or at least materially different accounts exist publicly regarding the state of safety governance at the time of Gruendel's termination; no court has yet determined which account, if either, accurately reflects that state.
Which evidentiary properties were missing?
Independent Audit Trail, Human Oversight Record, and Decision Traceability for the internal safety review and termination decision process - none of which are publicly documented outside the parties' own, currently disputed, characterizations.
