Why Was Figure AI’s Safety Chief Allegedly Fired?

TL;DR

A wrongful termination lawsuit alleges that Figure AI fired product safety leader Robert Grundell after he repeatedly warned executives about risks posed by powerful humanoid robots. The complaint says Figure lacked formal safety procedures when he joined, downgraded an investor-praised safety plan, and did not adequately address hazards such as an FO2 malfunction that reportedly damaged a refrigerator near an employee.

Transcript

Now, here is what really set everything off. This conclusion was further evidenced by an instance where an employee was standing next to an FO2 and the FO2 malfunctioned and punched the refrigerator, nearly missing the employee. The robot left a quarter inch deep gash in the refrigerator stainless steel door. We have a new lawsuit to review and it ... Read More

Key Insights

• The lawsuit is a whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination action brought by former Figure AI safety leader Robert Grundell. It alleges that his repeated safety warnings became an obstacle to the company and led to his dismissal on September 2, 2025.
• Grundell is described as a robot safety engineer with more than two decades of experience in robotics, human-robot interaction, and domestic and international safety standards. Figure recruited him as principal robotic safety engineer to develop and enforce its global safety strategy.
• Figure allegedly lacked basic safety infrastructure when Grundell began working on October 7, 2024. The complaint says he observed no formal safety procedures, incident reporting systems, robot risk assessment processes, or dedicated employee health and safety staff during his first week.
• Written safety requirements became a point of concern because CEO Brett Adcock and chief engineer Kyle Edelberg allegedly expressed dislike for written product requirements. Grundell reportedly considered that position abnormal in machinery safety and troubling for someone responsible for product safety.
• Home deployment requires robots to recognize living things and stop or slow their movements to prevent injury. Grundell reportedly concluded that guarded areas used to separate industrial robots from people would be impractical inside homes where robots must work closely with residents.
• The investor-facing safety strategy was reportedly well received by two Figure investors and publicly praised by Adcock. Grundell later objected when Edelberg significantly downgraded the plan because he believed investors had relied on the expectation that Figure would implement it.
• An FO2 malfunction allegedly caused the robot to punch a refrigerator while an employee stood nearby. According to the complaint, the strike narrowly missed the employee and left a quarter-inch-deep gash in the appliance’s stainless-steel door.
• The central tension is between Figure’s stated drive to move quickly and the elevated caution required for powerful physical machines. The presenter stresses that humanoid robot failures can produce real-world injuries and property damage, unlike errors confined to software applications.

Questions & Answers

Q: Why did Figure AI allegedly fire its head of safety?

Robert Grundell alleges that Figure AI fired him because his safety warnings interfered with the company’s effort to bring humanoid robots to market quickly. The complaint says he repeatedly escalated risks to CEO Brett Adcock and chief engineer Kyle Edelberg, received strong feedback and a raise, then was dismissed on September 2, 2025 under a vaguely described change in business direction.

Q: What safety problems did Robert Grundell allegedly find at Figure AI?

According to the lawsuit, Grundell found that Figure had no formal robot safety procedures, incident reporting systems, or risk assessment processes when he began working on site in California. The complaint also says the company lacked dedicated employee health and safety staff, even though employees worked near powerful humanoid machines capable of causing physical harm if they malfunctioned.

Q: What happened during the alleged Figure FO2 refrigerator incident?

The complaint describes an incident in which an employee was standing beside an FO2 when the robot malfunctioned and punched a refrigerator. The robot allegedly came close to striking the employee and carved a quarter-inch-deep gash into the refrigerator’s stainless-steel door. Grundell cited the event as evidence that the machines could create serious risks for nearby people.

Q: What qualifications did Figure AI’s former safety chief have?

The transcript describes Robert Grundell as a highly credentialed robot safety engineer with more than two decades of experience. His background covered robotics, human-robot interaction, and compliance with domestic and international safety standards. Figure recruited him, appointed him principal robotic safety engineer, had him report directly to CEO Brett Adcock, and assigned him responsibility for the company’s global safety strategy.

Q: Why are guarded robot areas impractical inside homes?

Guarded areas can separate people from robots in factories, but Grundell reportedly concluded that this approach would not work well in homes. Household humanoids are intended to operate around residents while doing tasks such as dishes, laundry, cleaning, and cooking. His proposed alternative emphasized detecting objects, identifying living things, and stopping or slowing robot movement to prevent injuries.

Q: How did Figure AI allegedly respond to the proposed home safety roadmap?

After CEO Brett Adcock asked what would be required to place Figure robots in homes, Grundell created a safety roadmap and scheduled a briefing. The lawsuit alleges that Adcock declined to attend. Grundell then sent him a condensed version of the requirements because he considered alignment between the CEO and safety team critical, but Adcock reportedly never responded.

Q: Why did Figure AI’s investor safety plan become disputed?

Grundell presented a detailed safety strategy to two Figure investors in May and June 2025, according to the complaint. The resulting white paper was reportedly well received by an investor and praised publicly by Brett Adcock. Grundell later objected when chief engineer Kyle Edelberg significantly downgraded the plan because he believed investors had expected the presented measures to be implemented.

Q: What does the lawsuit claim about written safety requirements at Figure AI?

The complaint says Brett Adcock and Kyle Edelberg expressed dislike for written product requirements after approving Grundell’s safety roadmap. Grundell reportedly responded that this attitude was abnormal in machinery safety and concerning to him as head of product safety. The presenter argues that written requirements matter because they establish a record of expected controls, responsibilities, and decisions.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Robert Grundell’s lawsuit characterizes his September 2, 2025 dismissal as whistleblower retaliation. He alleges that Figure AI terminated him after he repeatedly raised concerns about humanoid robot safety, despite previously giving him strong performance feedback, approving a raise, and publicly praising safety work he prepared for investors.

• Grundell reportedly joined Figure on October 7, 2024 as principal robotic safety engineer, reporting directly to CEO Brett Adcock. According to the complaint, he found no formal robot safety procedures, incident reporting systems, risk assessment processes, or dedicated employee health and safety staff during his first week working on site in California.

• The complaint focuses on the conflict between rapid commercialization and physical safety. Grundell allegedly warned that Figure’s robots could fracture a human skull and cited an FO2 malfunction that punched a refrigerator near an employee, leaving a quarter-inch-deep gash. Figure’s response to these allegations is not included in the provided transcript.