Fernando Oliveira v Ryanair DAC

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 1 de octubre de 2025, Workplace Relations Commission (Irlanda) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Complainant cited ADJ-00021453 as awarding €18,000 for procedural breaches; Respondent noted the referenced file related to industrial relations/wages and was dismissed as the complainant did not appear.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Complainant relied on ADJ-00040112 for career-stagnation awards; Respondent identified ADJ-00040112 as a phantom/non-existent determination.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Complainant cited ADJ-00035678 as awarding €8,000 for unlawful deductions; Respondent indicated the matter was an industrial relations complaint and not a precedent for unlawful deductions as claimed.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Complainant cited ADJ-00029543 as supporting an award for harassment; Respondent observed the referenced matter concerned alleged religious harassment where harassment was not established and no award was made.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Complainant cited ADJ-00026789 as a precedent awarding €10,000 for discriminatory searches; Respondent noted that decision did not reference targeted searches nor make such an award.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Complainant relied on DEC-E2016-105 claiming a €15,000 award for racial harassment; Respondent/Adjudicator noted the decision was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and outcome was misrepresented.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Complainant cited ADJ-00028765 as a precedent awarding €12,000 for coordinated false complaints; Respondent noted the referenced matter was a constructive dismissal claim that was dismissed.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Complainant relied on ADJ-00039821 as precedent for disciplining based on anonymous reports; Respondent identified ADJ-00039821 as a phantom/non-existent determination.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Complainant cited ADJ-00030217 as authority overturning warnings; Respondent noted the decision related to penalisation and contained no finding concerning 'warning' or overturning sanctions, so the citation was misapplied.

Desenlace

Conduct described as abuse of process. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/871/ADJ-00055225_-_Workplace_Relations_Commission.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.