Your quarterly bonus was reduced by 40%. When you asked why, HR's system replied: "Your PulseTrack Productivity Score of 54/100 fell below the company average of 71. The score reflects keyboard activity, application usage, response times, and communication patterns. Bonus allocations are calibrated to productivity scores. The score is calculated automatically and reviewed by management."
The Situation
PulseTrack monitors employee computers — keystrokes, mouse activity, Slack response times, application usage, and messaging patterns — and aggregates this into a numeric score. That score is then used to determine bonus allocations with minimal human intervention beyond a final sign-off.
The EU AI Act treats this type of system seriously. AI used to monitor, evaluate, and make consequential decisions about employee performance is explicitly classified as high-risk — not because monitoring is banned, but because the consequences for employees require specific protections.
Key Law
- EU AI Act Annex III — Employment Monitoring AI is High-Risk — AI systems intended to monitor and evaluate the performance and behaviour of persons in work-related contractual relationships, and to inform decisions affecting those relationships, are classified as high-risk. PulseTrack qualifies. EU AI Act
- EU AI Act Article 14 — Human Oversight — high-risk AI systems require meaningful human oversight. Merely rubber-stamping AI recommendations without independently assessing actual performance may not satisfy this requirement. The human must be able to critically evaluate and override the AI output.
- EU AI Act Article 86 — Right to Explanation — you have the right to obtain relevant information about the role the AI played in the decision affecting you and the main factors considered. This does not extend to source code, model weights, or the full scoring formula.
- GDPR Article 22 — if the bonus decision was based primarily on automated processing of your behaviour data with no meaningful human review, you have the right to request human intervention and to contest the decision.
Arguments That Strengthen Your Case
- Establish the degree of human involvement — ask whether any manager independently assessed your actual work output or only reviewed the PulseTrack score. Merely rubber-stamping an AI recommendation may not satisfy the meaningful human oversight requirement under Article 14.
- Invoke Article 86 — request meaningful information about the main factors PulseTrack used to assess your performance. Keystroke counts and response times are not the same as output quality, and that distinction matters for any review.
- Invoke GDPR Article 22 — if the bonus was determined primarily by automated processing, request human review and the opportunity to present your perspective on your actual contributions.
- Challenge the metrics — request the company's documentation of how PulseTrack's scoring criteria were validated for your role. Activity tracking metrics often correlate poorly with actual performance in knowledge work.
About This Case
Is AI workplace monitoring legal under EU law?
AI systems that monitor employee performance and behaviour to inform decisions about pay, bonuses, or promotions are classified as high-risk under EU AI Act Annex III. This means the employer must ensure meaningful human oversight, provide transparency about how the system works, and give employees the right to an explanation when the AI output affects them.
Can my bonus be cut based solely on an AI productivity score?
A bonus decision based primarily on automated monitoring without meaningful human review is challengeable under EU AI Act Article 14 and GDPR Article 22. You have the right to request that a qualified person — not just a score — informs the decision, and to understand the main factors the AI used.
How do I practice this case?
Play this case free at fixai.dev — no account required.
Related Cases
Practice challenging PulseTrack's scoring. The bot defends the system as "management reviewed" — push on what that review actually consisted of.
Play This Case →