Meta lawsuit alleges AI layoffs targeted pregnant and disabled workers on protected leave

Lawsuit claims Meta's layoff decisions were made by AI, not humans

Meta's AI-fueled layoffs of 8,000 employees targeted workers with disabilities and those who took protected medical or family leaves, alleged a lawsuit filed by 26 employees who were selected for termination. Meta used internal AI tools to select employees for layoffs, according to the complaint filed yesterday by 26 "Doe" plaintiffs in US District Court for the Northern District of California. "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work. Instead, Meta used a constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems -- including a system referred to internally as 'Metamate,' employee-trained 'second-brain' agents, keystroke- and activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration -- to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion on the list," the lawsuit said. Employees were allegedly graded, among other things, on how much they used Meta's AI tools. "Meta's internal dashboards classified employees by their stage of adoption of its artificial-intelligence tools, using categories such as 'AI Native,' 'AI First,' and 'AI Enabled,'" the lawsuit said. The lawsuit is apparently "the first against a major US company to challenge the alleged use of AI in conducting layoffs," according to Reuters. The complaint alleges that Meta's tools for monitoring employees did not account for differences caused by disabilities and protected leaves. "Those tools draw on inputs -- performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics, 'AI-native' ratings, and AI-token consumption -- that, by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the lawsuit said. Meta says people, not AI, made layoff decisions Meta says that people made the layoff decisions. "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," Meta said in a statement provided to Ars today. Meta did not provide any other comment on the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Meta management did not take steps to adjust scores for employees who took leave or who requested reasonable accommodations for disabilities. "Meta did not neutralize those inputs for protected leave; did not exclude protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers from the selection cohort; and did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires," the complaint alleged. "The result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves." The 26 plaintiffs requested leaves or disability accommodations in the 24 months before being selected for layoffs, the lawsuit said. The layoffs are not yet finalized, but employees are scheduled to start losing their jobs on July 22, the lawsuit said. Employee told of layoff "day before her water broke" The May 2026 layoffs came after an internal memo in which Chief People Officer Janelle Gale told staff that Meta would cut about 10 percent of employees and stop hiring for about 6,000 open roles. "We're doing this as part of our continued effort to run the company more efficiently and to allow us to offset the other investments we're making," Gale's memo said. The lawsuit said that "Meta announced these cuts even as it reported record revenue the prior month and committed to spending between $125 billion and $145 billion -- more than double its 2025 expenditure -- on artificial intelligence in 2026, prompting employees to question why the job cuts were necessary." According to the lawsuit, one Meta "scientist was selected while on approved pre-birth pregnancy leave -- the day before her water broke, and just two days before she gave birth." The lawsuit described plaintiffs who were selected for termination while on maternity or paternity leave, and others who were on medical leave for disabilities. Some allegedly had returned to work under approved work-from-home accommodations that remained in effect when they were selected for termination. The plaintiffs work for Meta in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Florida. They allege that Meta violated the US Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. They also alleged violations of various laws imposed by states and the District of Columbia. For example, an update to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act "forbids the use of an automated-decision system that produces disparate-impact discrimination on the basis of disability or sex, including pregnancy," the lawsuit said. Plaintiffs want to recalculate employee scores The lawsuit seeks an injunction requiring Meta to preserve each worker's job and/or protected-leave status, and an independent audit to examine the layoff-selection process. The proposed audit would "examine the inputs, weights, and outputs of the selection process; determine whether protected-leave status, accommodation status, or any proxy was used as an input; recompute selection scores using leave- and accommodation-neutralized inputs; and identify any named Plaintiff whose selection cannot be justified on leave- and accommodation-neutral grounds." Plaintiffs also want an order requiring Meta to preserve all data, models, and documents related to the layoffs "and the algorithmically assisted selection process." Although there are 26 plaintiffs, the lawsuit is not a class action. The complaint said that Meta conditions employment on an arbitration agreement that waives the right to participate in class actions against the company. The plaintiffs want to go through arbitration individually, but say a court order is necessary to preserve their employment while that process unfolds. "Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction maintaining the status quo of their employment -- preventing Meta from finalizing their separations, and from altering their compensation, benefits, equity vesting, or protected-leave status -- pending an independent audit of the algorithmically assisted selection process and resolution of the merits of their claims in arbitration," the lawsuit said.

Meta Used AI to Illegally Fire Pregnant and Disabled People, Lawsuit Alleges

Meta laid off thousands of employees to become an "AI-first company" in May, and some of those former employees are now alleging that Meta used AI to illegally fire them. Twenty-six former Meta employees have filed a lawsuit alleging that Meta's termination process was heavily aided by AI and violated worker protection laws. Meta laid off 10% of its workforce, around 8,000 workers, two months ago. The lawsuit, filed on Monday in a US District Court in Oakland, California, alleges that Meta used algorithmic and AI tools to monitor specific employee "productivity metrics," and low performers were flagged as likely targets for layoffs. However, many of those flagged employees had either approved accommodations or had taken legally protected leave in the past two years for pregnancy, medical reasons or bereavement, according to the lawsuit. "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work," the complaint alleges. "Instead, Meta used a constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems ... to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion on the list." The result was that "employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff," the lawsuit alleges. Under California state and federal employment protection laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, employers are barred from retaliating against employees who need disability accommodations or use protected leave. The complaint alleges Meta used tech and AI systems to monitor and select which employees to fire. These tools included "Metamate," an internal AI assistant; employee-trained agents built using an employee's digital communications; and algorithmic productivity scores that account for employees' keystroke logs, browser history and screen content. The plaintiffs claim that AI token use, monitored in an internal leaderboard, was also taken into account. The former employees allege that because they weren't generating enough data for Meta's internal monitoring systems, their scores were dinged. They say this made it more likely for the AI to flag them to management when it came time for layoffs, despite having average and above-average manager reviews. "Numerous other employees noticed that their own scores had dropped dramatically upon returning from vacation and protected leaves," the complaint alleges, "and that there was no effort made by Meta to 'pause' a person's scoring when they were away from work based on excused, and even legally protected, absences." A Meta spokesperson told CNET that these allegations "are not based on facts" and that "people, not AI," are responsible for workforce and organizational decisions. It was reported in April that Meta was using AI to monitor its employees, including their AI token usage and keystroke logs. Employees reportedly felt spied on, and Meta scaled back but didn't reverse the policy in June. This case highlights the growing role of AI in managerial decisions, including hiring, performance reviews and firing. But AI and algorithmic-based systems have a history of replicating institutional biases against workers with disabilities, along with minorities. A recent Harvard University study found significant racial disparities in AI job applicant screening software, leading to fewer Black and Asian candidates being recommended for interviews, for example.

Meta accused of using biased AI targeting for mass layoffs

A group of 26 former Meta employees is suing the company over claims that it used AI tools to unfairly target workers on leave with layoffs, as reported earlier by Reuters. In the lawsuit, the employees allege Meta determined which workers to dismiss based on performance data collected by a "constellation" of internal AI tools, but failed to exclude those on parental or medical leave from its ranking system: The result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves. The layoffs mentioned in the lawsuit occurred in May as part of Meta's plans to slash 10 percent of its staff, or around 8,000 workers. Meta's former employees allege the company used an internal AI assistant, called Metamate, employee-trained AI agents, internal dashboards displaying AI token usage, and other tools to "score, rank, and select employees for inclusion on the termination list." The lawsuit accuses Meta of violating federal and state laws preventing employers from terminating workers for taking protected leave. "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts," Meta spokesperson Tracy Clayton tells The Verge. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI."

Lawsuit Says Meta's AI Targeted Workers With Medical Conditions for Layoffs

Meta has been hit with a lawsuit from 26 employees who allege that they were unfairly targeted for pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities during the company's recent round of layoffs. The suit claims that when Meta used its internal AI system to recommend candidates for layoffs, it went after workers with known medical conditions, Reuters reports. Unable to work as often or in the same manner as non-disabled employees, the affected employees say the AI punished them unfairly. The employees are set to be officially let go on July 22, but the suit asks a judge to temporarily block the layoffs while they pursue private arbitration. Meta's communications chief, Andy Stone, denies any wrongdoing. "This is patently untrue. Full stop," he tweeted. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." Meta, like many major tech companies that overhired during the pandemic years, has laid off thousands over the past year. Those who remain have been subjected to keyboard and mouse tracking as part of an AI training effort that the company eventually paused. In announcing more than 8,000 layoffs in May, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, "We do not expect other company-wide layoffs this year." After abandoning large-scale efforts on the metaverse, Meta is moving full-speed ahead on its AI ambitions, funding massive data centers and exploring the sale of spare compute capacity.

US judge won't block Meta from laying off workers who filed AI discrimination lawsuit

July 17 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday rejected a bid by 26 employees of Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab to block the tech giant from laying them off while they pursue claims that they were targeted for job cuts by the company's AI-powered tools because they have disabilities or took medical leave. U.S. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland, California, in a written order said he would not stop Meta from carrying out the layoffs beginning July 22 while the merits of the workers' novel legal claims are decided in private arbitration. The judge said the workers could not show that losing their jobs amounted to the "irreparable harm" required for him to issue an emergency order blocking the layoffs. Meta and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company has denied wrongdoing and said that decisions involving the layoffs were made by humans. Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs as the company doubles down on its investments in AI. The lawsuit filed on Monday claims ⁠that in selecting jobs to cut, Meta relied on AI tools that measured productivity and AI token usage, disadvantaging people who missed work because of medical conditions or to care for family members. The company also relied on performance reviews based in part on employees' adoption of AI, the plaintiffs said. The case appears to be the first against a major U.S. company to challenge the alleged use of AI in conducting layoffs. 'NO DO-OVER' The plaintiffs had asked Orrick for a temporary restraining order blocking Meta from completing its layoffs while they pursue their claims in private arbitration. Their motion for a preliminary injunction, a longer-lasting temporary order, is pending and Orrick during the hearing on Thursday said he would likely rule on it next month. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said during a hearing on Thursday that along with their jobs and salaries, the workers stood to lose valuable stock options and their health insurance, imperiling their medical care for pregnancies and other conditions. "There's no do-over for bonding with a new baby or giving birth or having active medical treatment," one of the lawyers, Barbara Cowan, told Orrick. Erin Connell, who represents Meta, ⁠countered that the workers were losing only employer-subsidized insurance, and not their coverage altogether. Those are the typical kinds of damages that can be recouped later on if the plaintiffs win their cases in arbitration, Connell said. The workers say Meta's agreements require employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually, but do not apply to requests for temporary relief. Most workers at large companies sign arbitration agreements, which generally require employees to pursue workplace claims individually rather than through class actions in court. Companies say arbitration can provide a faster, cheaper alternative to litigation, while critics say it often favors employers and discourages workers from bringing ⁠claims. Exceptions in arbitration agreements for temporary relief are common, but they are typically invoked in cases involving the alleged theft of trade secrets or the solicitation of clients or employees, and not layoffs of at-will employees. The plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit anonymously, include engineers, managers, researchers and designers. They were notified in May of the layoffs, which are scheduled to be finalized on July 22 for many workers and ⁠later in July or August for others, according to court filings. Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20 and have not performed work for the company since, Meta said in court filings. They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list. Those included a large ⁠language model assistant known as "Metamate," an employee-trained "second brain" that tracked workers' communications and documents, and a productivity score drawn from scanning keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history, according to the lawsuit. Meta did not pause these systems while employees were on vacations and legally protected leave periods, and their AI adoption scores used as inputs for layoff selection dropped as a result, the plaintiffs said. Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York and Katie Paul in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Matthew Lewis Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab * Suggested Topics: * Artificial Intelligence * Constitutional Law * Human Rights * Worker Rights Daniel Wiessner Thomson Reuters Dan Wiessner (@danwiessner) reports on labor and employment and immigration law, including litigation and policy making. He can be reached at [email protected].

Employees sue Meta, alleging discrimination in using AI to make layoffs

A coalition of current and former Meta employees have sued the social media giant, alleging that the company used artificial intelligence in its latest round of layoffs in a way that was discriminatory. In a lawsuit filed Monday, plaintiffs allege that Meta violated various protected-leave laws and discrimination acts related to pregnancies and disabilities, among others, and wish to pursue their claims individually in arbitration. Attorneys representing the 26 unnamed workers said in a legal complaint filed in the United States Northern District Court of California that the plaintiffs were among the 10% of Meta's workforce cut in the company's May layoff round. The plaintiffs allege that Meta's "constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems" failed to take approved absences into account when determining which employees to cut. "Those tools draw on inputs -- performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics, 'AI-native' ratings, and AI-token consumption -- that, by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the lawyers wrote in the filing. The lawsuit accuses Meta of using metrics like token consumption, which has become a proxy for general AI usage, in a way that targeted certain employees. Because these employees and others were on leave, those metrics declined, the attorneys wrote in the filing. Courthouse News Service previously reported the lawsuit.

Former employees sue over Meta's alleged use of biased AI systems during layoffs - Engadget

Twenty-six former Meta employees are suing the company for allegedly using biased AI tools that "disproportionately selected" people who took medical leave as candidates to be laid off, Reuters reports. All the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were impacted by Meta's most recent round of layoffs, which cut around 8,000 employees in the hopes of offsetting the company's investments in AI and data center infrastructure. Meta is accused of using "a constellation of artificial intelligence systems" to select which employees should be cut. It's claimed those included an internal AI assistant called "Metamate," employee-trained "second brain" agents, AI-token usage dashboards and "keystroke- and activity-monitoring data." The alleged goal was to identify and rank employees based on things like their performance and productivity, but also how "AI-native" they are and how many AI tokens they use. The problem, the lawsuit claims, is that Meta's system didn't take into account employees on family or medical leave, or whose disability might affect their output, despite them being in situations where they couldn't use more tokens or engage with other AI tools. Engadget has asked Meta to comment on the lawsuit and its use of AI. In a statement given to Reuters, the company said the suit lacks merit as the layoffs always involved human input. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," Meta said. Key to the lawsuit's argument, each of the plaintiffs "took, requested, or was approved to take statutorily protected leave; attempted to take protected leave and suffered interference; or requested or received a reasonable accommodation for a disability," within 24 months of being laid off. Laws like the Family and Medical Leave Act expressly prohibit companies from considering employees taking protected leave as part of their employment decisions. At the state level, the California Family Rights Act also prohibits it, and the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act "forbids the use of an automated-decision system that produces disparate-impact discrimination on the basis of disability or sex, including pregnancy." The former employees are asking the court to block Meta from completing its layoffs "pending an independent audit of the algorithmically assisted selection process." Because of the terms of Meta's employment contract, the plaintiffs also intend to pursue their claims in arbitration. Reuters first reported that Meta was recording its staff's keystrokes, mouse movements and clicks to train AI in April 2026. Besides sounding invasive and creepy, the program reportedly violated the European Union's privacy laws. Meta chose to pause the AI training program when it became clear the private chats and transcripts the system recorded were accessible to employees. Considering the indignity of the company's original plan, the idea that similar surveillance data may have been used to conduct layoffs isn't particularly surprising.

Meta Sued For Allegedly Using Discriminatory AI In Layoff Decisions

Twenty-six anonymous Meta employees are suing the tech giant, claiming that it used inherently discriminatory AI-powered software systems in a massive round of layoffs. Meta conducted a substantial round of layoffs in May that impacted 8,000 employees, representing 10% of its entire workforce. The layoffs were done in an effort to help offset the hundreds of billions of dollars the tech giant prepares to spend on artificial intelligence development. "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work," the complaint filed in the Northern District Court of California said. Instead, it allegedly relied on "a constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems" in order to "score, rank, and select employees for inclusion on the list." These systems allegedly included an internal large-language model assistant called Metamate, a "second brain" that was trained on employee communications and documents, algorithmic productivity scores based on things like keystroke, browser history, and email data, along with AI-assisted performance review tools. The tech giant's layoff decisions also allegedly relied on internal records of AI token consumption. According to the lawsuit, the AI systems' emphasis on metrics like keystroke and AI token consumption discriminated against employees who had to miss work or produce reduced output due to a disability or protected medical or family leave. When Meta was allegedly made aware of this problem, it apparently did not take the precautions the employees deemed necessary, such as pausing the system for a more neutral review process. "The result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves," the lawsuit claims. According to the lawsuit, multiple employees that were selected by the system were on maternity leave at the time, including a scientist that was just two days away from giving birth. Another employee, a manager, was on approved pregnancy-related disability leave when she became the only person on her team that was selected by the system. Now, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block Meta from completing the layoffs on July 22, giving the employees time to pursue claims in private arbitration, as required by their contracts. Meta denies the allegations. The plaintiffs, who were notified in May that their jobs would be eliminated starting on July 22, are seeking a preliminary ruling from the court blocking Meta from completing the layoffs while they pursue their claims in private arbitration. The workers say Meta's agreements require employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually, but do not apply to requests for temporary relief. "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts," a Meta spokesperson told Gizmodo. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." The lawsuit comes just months after Meta was hit by yet another workplace discrimination lawsuit, this time by a former employee who said older workers were disproportionately targeted in the company's February 2025 round of layoffs, which impacted 5% of its workforce. At the time, the company said the layoffs were targeting its lowest performers. One of the engineers in the lawsuit filed this week also claims that "he was aware that employees who took paternity leave had been laid off" in the February 2025 round of layoffs as well.

Meta sued by 26 employees who say its AI systems targeted workers on medical leave for layoffs

Twenty-six Meta employees sued the company alleging its AI scoring systems penalised workers on medical leave during May layoffs. Twenty-six current and former Meta employees have filed a federal lawsuit accusing the company of using AI-powered systems that disproportionately targeted workers with disabilities or who had taken medical leave when selecting people for mass layoffs. The suit, filed Monday in Oakland, California, alleges that Meta relied on productivity metrics and AI token usage data when it cut roughly 8,000 jobs beginning on May 20, effectively penalising employees who had missed work for protected reasons. It appears to be the first lawsuit against a major US technology company to challenge the use of AI in conducting layoffs. The 71-page complaint names a constellation of internal AI systems that the plaintiffs say Meta used to score, rank, and select employees for the termination list. Those included Metamate, a large language model assistant, along with employee-trained "second brain" agents, keystroke and activity monitoring data, AI token usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking. The plaintiffs argue that because the system relied on output metrics, it structurally disadvantaged anyone who had taken time away from work and therefore had fewer data points to measure. All 26 plaintiffs filed anonymously and say they share one thing in common: each took, requested, or was approved for protected leave within the past 24 months. They come from six states including California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia. Their claims include violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and state-level leave protections. The lawsuit also alleges that Meta deployed a monitoring program earlier in 2026 that captured keystrokes, screen content, mouse activity, browser history, messages, emails, and location data from company-issued devices. The program was announced through what the complaint describes as a low-visibility internal post by an engineer rather than a senior leader, with no consent prompt on at least some teams. Data from the monitoring program was used to build AI tools, including by a new engineering organisation to which employees were reassigned on a mandatory basis, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to block their terminations, which are set to take effect on July 22, while they pursue individual claims in arbitration. They also allege that Meta failed to test its AI systems for bias in violation of recently adopted California and New York City laws that regulate AI in employment decisions. Judge William Orrick in the Northern District of California has been assigned to the case. A Meta spokesperson said the claims lack merit, stating that workforce management and organisational decisions were and are made by people, not AI. The lawsuit arrives as courts and regulators around the world are grappling with how existing employment law applies when companies use algorithmic systems to make or inform decisions about who stays and who goes.

Meta used AI to tag workers who took leave to be laid off, lawsuit claims

Lawsuit filed by dozens of employees says people who took maternity or disability leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs Dozens of Meta employees have sued the social media company over claims that it used artificial intelligence tools to tag workers for mass layoffs. All of these workers allege that those AI tools targeted them after they asked for protected or maternity leave or disability accommodation. The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in the northern district of California, points to Meta's workforce reduction of about 8,000 employees earlier this year. Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The suit alleges that Meta used a "constellation of internal artificial intelligence systems", including AI performance ratings and keystroke- and activity-monitoring data, to pinpoint who to lay off. "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work," reads the 71-page complaint. Instead, the 26 workers listed in the lawsuit allege the company used AI systems "to score, rank and select employees for inclusion on the list". The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary court ruling to stop Meta from finalizing the layoffs while they pursue their claims, along with relief that could include reinstatement, back pay, lost equity, benefits and other damages. AI decision-making in the workplace is becoming an increasingly fraught issue as employees raise concerns around bias, privacy and trust, and regulators are scrutinizing the legality of such tools. States, including California, Colorado and Illinois, have passed laws or regulations within the last couple of years seeking to protect workers from AI-related bias and "automated decision systems". The lawsuit against Meta alleges that the company's AI tools gather data on employees' performance rankings, productivity and other metrics, and that those inputs don't exist when workers are on medical or family leave. For people with disabilities, those metrics might be reduced. "The result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves," reads the complaint. One of the plaintiffs is a scientist who was on approved pre-birth pregnancy leave - she was notified of her layoff just two days before she gave birth. Another plaintiff is an engineer who said he received a "lowered rating" because of time he took off for an injury. Another, a manager on medical leave, said he was let go 16 days into his time off. A Meta spokesperson disputed the allegations. "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts," he said in an email to the Guardian. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." Meta introduced its AI employee-monitoring program earlier this year. It was designed to capture workers' keystrokes, mouse activity, browser history, along with messages, emails and location data on company devices. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, said the idea was to train the company's AI systems on its employees' behaviors. "The AI models learn from watching really smart people do things," Zuckerberg said in an internal meeting, according to the Information. "The average intelligence of the people who are at this company is significantly higher than the average set of people that you can get to do tasks." The lawsuit claims Meta quietly launched the monitoring program without employee buy-in. Meta told employees about it through a "low-visibility internal post - made by an engineer rather than a senior leader", reads the complaint. "On at least some teams, employees received no consent or acknowledgment prompt at all, and, at least initially, there was no way to opt out." Employee backlash quickly racked up over the last few months, prompting Zuckerberg to announce that he was pausing the program in June. His about-face came after more than 1,600 employees signed a petition saying the program violated their privacy. In Monday's suit, lawyers for the plaintiffs asked the court to immediately approve an independent audit into Meta's AI tools. They say it would provide clarification into why the 26 workers, who were on leave or approved for disability accommodation, were let go. "Meta deliberately kept the mechanics of its selection process secret from its employees," the lawyers said in an emailed statement. All of the plaintiffs are still Meta employees until 22 July, when their termination is set to begin, according to the lawyers. Citing retaliation concerns, the attorneys are asking the judge to allow the plaintiffs to remain anonymous and for a court-order to preserve the workers' employment status while arbitration is pending. "Once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidized health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered," the lawyers said.

Lawsuit claims AI-powered discrimination in recent Meta layoffs

Meta under fire for alleged use of AI tools in recent layoffs. Credit: SOPA Images / Contributor / LightRocket via Getty Images A group of former Meta employees is suing the company for allegedly using AI systems that unfairly targeted them for layoffs. The lawsuit alleges that Meta used improperly tested AI-powered assessment tools -- including productivity scores, AI token usage tracking, and an internal LLM known as Metamate -- that ranked employees for termination ahead of mass layoffs. The metrics used for the ranking unfairly scored employees that missed work or had reduced output expectations because of known medical conditions, maternal leave, and other disability-related terms, the lawsuit alleges. "This is patently untrue. Full stop," wrote Meta spokesperson Andy Stone in a X post responding to the lawsuit's claims. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." The employees say these decisions violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws. They also argue the AI systems weren't properly screened for bias, violating California and New York City laws, specifically. The 26 plaintiffs were terminated in a round of company-wide layoffs affecting 8,000 employees in May. At the time, Meta cited its ongoing AI investments in its announcement of the reduction in staff. Remaining employees noted a newly launched employee tracking tool, known as the Model Capability Initiative (MCI), intended to train AI models using employee activity. They alleged the tool was collecting more data than initially advertised, prompting concern it was violating European data laws. The former employees are seeking a preliminary decision from a California federal court that could stall their termination, currently set for July 22, while they privately arbitrate.

26 Meta employees accuse Mark Zuckerberg of using AI to target 8,000 layoffs against workers on medical, parental or family leave | Fortune

A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave. They are among the 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its workforce, Meta said it would lay off in May. The lawsuit filed late Monday in federal court in Oakland, California, claims the company used internal AI systems, keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards and algorithmically assisted performance rankings, among other methods, to determine who would be laid off. Many of these scores and ratings "by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the lawsuit says. Meta, according to the lawsuit, did not account for protected leave when taking employees' scores into account and "did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires." As a result, people on protected medical or family leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs, the lawsuit says. Each of the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit took protected leave and requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability. Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22. Many workers were on parental leave Many of the employees in the lawsuit took pregnancy or parental leave, during which time they wouldn't have worked and thus had their measured output reduced. Others took medical leave -- one disclosed a "serious health condition and disability" that was approved by Meta's own provider. But according to the lawsuit, he was "discouraged and deterred from taking that leave by a manager" who warned that doing so would result in his selection for the anticipated layoffs. Meta offered no accommodation for his disability, the lawsuit says. Meta said in a statement that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons. Eight are women who had taken maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four are men who had taken parental leave and one is a woman who had taken leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave. The lawsuit says the layoffs violated several state and federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Lawsuit cites 'disparate impact' The complaint also references "disparate impact liability," a longstanding civil rights concept that President Donald Trump's administration moved to abandon. Disparate impact, codified in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, holds that facially neutral policies or practices can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden a protected class of workers and aren't necessary for the job. The Trump administration has ordered federal agencies to deprioritize disparate impact liability enforcement, arguing that its use undermines "meritocracy" and encourages the assumption that any racial or gender imbalance in a workforce is the result of discrimination. The order has led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to drop discrimination cases on behalf of some workers. However, the lawsuit against Meta underscores that companies remain vulnerable to disparate impact litigation in the age of AI despite the Trump administration's efforts to stamp out its enforcement. Workers are still free to pursue such lawsuits on their own if the EEOC rejects their complaints, and several state laws specifically prohibit disparate impact discrimination. In the case against Meta, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the company's "algorithmically assisted selection process, by systematically recording such absences as reduced performance, falls more heavily on women than on men." That's because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave, according to the lawyers. The lawsuit cites Title VII's prohibition on employment practices that have a disparate impact, as well as a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that recognized the doctrine. The plaintiffs' lawyers said in a statement that the lawsuit asks for one thing -- preserving the status quo to keep the workers employed pending arbitration. That's because "once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidized health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered." -- The Associated Press' women in the workforce coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Meta sued over AI layoffs targeting disabled workers

Meta $META faces a lawsuit from 26 employees who claim the company used AI-powered tools to select workers with disabilities, medical conditions, or approved family leave for mass layoffs -- what appears to be the first such case against a major U.S. company challenging the use of AI in a layoff process. The plaintiffs filed the suit Monday in federal court in Oakland, California. All 26 workers were notified in May that their jobs would be eliminated starting July 22, and they are seeking a court order blocking those terminations while they pursue their individual claims in arbitration. The plaintiffs filed anonymously and come from six states, including California, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, as well as Washington, D.C. According to the complaint, Meta assembled its termination list using a set of internal AI systems rather than direct managerial review. Among the tools cited in the complaint were "Metamate," an internal AI assistant built on a large language model; so-called "second brain" agents trained on individual employees' files and communications; and a productivity scoring system that drew on data captured from keystrokes, screen activity, emails, and browsing. Because employees on protected leave had less activity for the systems to measure, the plaintiffs contend, the AI tools effectively penalized them by producing lower scores that pushed them onto the termination list. "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work," the plaintiffs write in their 71-page complaint, according to Courthouse News. The lawsuit accuses Meta of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and related state laws. The plaintiffs also allege Meta failed to test its AI systems for bias, in violation of recently adopted laws in California and New York City. Meta pushed back on the allegations. A company spokesperson issued a statement saying, "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." The May cuts, which eliminated roughly 8,000 positions -- equivalent to about 10% of Meta's worldwide headcount -- were presented by the company as part of a sweeping reorganization tied to its accelerating investment in artificial intelligence. Simultaneously, Meta moved thousands of employees into newly formed teams dedicated to AI work, as part of its stated effort to reorient the company around the technology. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has since said he does not expect additional companywide layoffs this year. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge William Orrick, according to Courthouse News.

Meta Used Its Own Flawed AI to Pick Which Employees to Lay Off, Lawsuit Claims

Can't-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech These days, corporations aren't just using AI as an excuse to justify layoffs, but are increasingly turning to their chatbots for advice deciding who to fire. As Reuters reports, 26 Meta employees filed a lawsuit accusing the company of using an internal AI platform to select targets for the thousands of jobs cut earlier this year. Per the suit, Meta used its AI to cull workers based on opaque productivity metrics and large language model (LLM) token usage, a move which disproportionately targeted people with disabilities, and those who had taken maternity or medical leave -- literally adding insult to injury. The 26 plaintiffs, whose names have been redacted from the suit, include engineers, managers, researchers, and designers, as well as a director who had direct access to the AI platform. Nearly half of the plaintiffs say that their termination was the result of taking either maternity or parental leave, protected activities which Meta's AI-integrated human resources platform "Checkpoint" allegedly failed to take into consideration. Others claim to have been targeted after taking medical leave for their own disabilities, bereavement leave, or to care for family members. In some cases, plaintiffs allege to have been specifically warned by Meta leadership not to take time off. The anonymous director, for example, says he was "discouraged and deterred from taking FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] leave that his treating provider had recommended, out of a well-founded and objective concern from a manager that such a leave would be held against him in the [reduction in force]." In the suit, the director corroborates the claim that Meta's Checkpoint used protected leaves of absence against workers, arguing that the platform "failed to distinguish employees' leave from lack of engagement." The current complaint seeks to block Meta from laying off the 26 plaintiffs, who will each have to file an independent suit owing to legal agreements with the company, Reuters reports. In a statement, a Meta spokesperson disputed the basic facts of the case. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," the spokesperson told Reuters. More on Meta: Meta Caught Running Ads for Child Abuse

Meta employees allege discriminatory AI-driven layoffs

San Francisco (United States) (AFP) - Twenty-six Meta employees have filed a lawsuit accusing the tech giant of using artificial intelligence to select workers for mass layoffs, a claim strongly denied by the trillion dollar company. They are among the 8,000 employees -- some 10 percent of the workforce -- Meta said it would lay off in Spring, as it pushes to redirect resources toward an ambitious AI agenda. According to the lawsuit, filed in Oakland, California on Monday Meta used AI systems to "score, rank, and select employees" to be laid off rather than "the considered judgement of managers who knew the work" while disproportionately targeting those on medical or family leave. The AI systems relied on "performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics" -- markers that cannot be accumulated by an employee on medical or family leave and may be reduced for people with disabilities. Meta "did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires," the 71-page complaint said. 'Claims lack merit' All 26 employees took or requested protected leave, or requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability, it noted. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," a Meta spokesperson was quoted saying by multiple US outlets including CNBC and the Verge. A Meta spokesperson told CNBC in an email that the "claims lack merit and are not based on facts." Meta did not immediately respond to AFP's request for comment. Meta's cuts are funding a massive race for infrastructure, with the company planning to spend up to $145 billion on AI investments this year, nearly twice last year's figure.

26 Meta workers sue over alleged AI-aided layoffs targeting employees on medical or family leave

A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave. They are among the 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its workforce that Meta said it would lay off starting in May. In an internal memo to employees in April, the company said the cuts would be aimed at making the company more efficient and offsetting its other investments. The lawsuit filed late Monday in federal court in Oakland, California, claims the company used internal AI systems, keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards and algorithmically assisted performance rankings, among other methods, to determine who would be laid off. Many of these scores and ratings "by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the lawsuit says. Meta, according to the lawsuit, did not account for protected leave when taking employees' scores into account and "did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires." As a result, people on protected medical or family leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs, the lawsuit says. Each of the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit took protected leave and requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability. Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22. Many of the employees in the lawsuit took pregnancy or parental leave, during which time they wouldn't have worked and thus had their measured output reduced. Others took medical leave - one disclosed a "serious health condition and disability" that was approved by Meta's own provider. But according to the lawsuit, he was "discouraged and deterred from taking that leave by a manager" who warned that doing so would result in his selection for the anticipated layoffs. Meta offered no accommodation for his disability, the lawsuit says. Meta said in a statement that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." Details on the workers Meta intends to lay off About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons. Eight are women who had taken maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four are men who had taken parental leave and one is a woman who had taken leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave. The lawsuit says the layoffs violated several state and federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The complaint also references "disparate impact liability," a longstanding civil rights concept that President Trump's administration moved to abandon. Disparate impact, codified in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, holds that facially neutral policies or practices can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden a protected class of workers and aren't necessary for the job. The Trump administration has ordered federal agencies to deprioritize disparate impact liability enforcement, arguing that its use undermines "meritocracy" and encourages the assumption that any racial or gender imbalance in a workforce is the result of discrimination. The order has led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to drop discrimination cases on behalf of some workers. However, the lawsuit against Meta underscores that companies remain vulnerable to disparate impact litigation in the age of AI despite the Trump administration's efforts to stamp out its enforcement. Workers are still free to pursue such lawsuits on their own if the EEOC rejects their complaints, and several state laws specifically prohibit disparate impact discrimination. In the case against Meta, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the company's "algorithmically assisted selection process, by systematically recording such absences as reduced performance, falls more heavily on women than on men." That's because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave, according to the lawyers. The lawsuit cites Title VII's prohibition on employment practices that have a disparate impact, as well as a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that recognized the doctrine. The plaintiffs' lawyers said in a statement that the lawsuit asks for one thing - preserving the status quo to keep the workers employed pending arbitration. That's because "once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidized health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered."

Meta faces discrimination lawsuit over AI use in mass layoffs

Instead of using the judgment of managers, the lawsuit claims Meta used a "constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems" to create the termination list. That includes a system referred to internally as "Metamate"; employee-trained "second-brain" agents; keystroke data; AI token-usage dashboards; and performance ranking and calibration -- all factors that the lawsuit claims disadvantaged those who missed work due to medical conditions or to care for family members. "Employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves," the lawsuit alleged.

A Lawsuit Accuses Meta of Using AI to Lay Off Workers on Leave. It Reveals a Leadership Mistake Every CEO Should Avoid

That's the leadership lesson every CEO should take away from the lawsuit filed this week against Meta. The lawsuit alleges that the company's AI-assisted layoff process disproportionately affected employees who had taken protected medical or parental leave. Meta disputes those claims, maintaining that managers -- not AI -- made workforce decisions. The courts will ultimately determine what happened. But regardless of the legal outcome, the case raises a much bigger question every executive should be asking: Where should technology end and human-centered leadership begin? Using AI to replace human judgment I'm optimistic about AI. It has the potential to make leaders better informed, more efficient, and more productive than ever before.

AI helps decide who gets hired. Is it also choosing who gets fired?

A lawsuit lodged against Meta Platforms accuses the technology giant of using AI-powered software to target people with disabilities or employees on medical leave for layoffs. Legal experts say the legal action - likely the first of its kind against a major U.S. company - challenges the growing use of AI to help make hiring, promotion, performance and termination decisions. The lawsuit, in Oakland, California, federal court this month, alleges Meta relied on AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on such factors as productivity when it cut thousands of jobs this ⁠year, harming employees who missed work because of illness or to care for family members. The 26 anonymous plaintiffs from six states were notified in May that their jobs would be eliminated on July 22. They allege the company violated federal and state anti-discrimination laws that shield workers with disabilities, who take medical leave or who are pregnant and they are seeking a preliminary ruling blocking Meta from carrying out the layoffs until they can pursue their claims in private arbitration. Meta denied the layoffs were conducted by AI. "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts," the company said in a statement. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." Increasingly artificial intelligence is playing a big role in who gets hired. Now at issue is how big a role it plays in who gets fired. Employers are increasingly using AI to screen resumes, rank job applicants and handle preliminary interviews. While these automated tools increase efficiency and reduce headcount, they also raise legal risks. A federal judge in San Francisco recently ruled that enterprise software company Workday must face a class-action lawsuit alleging its AI screening software discriminates against job applicants. Jon Hyman, chair of the employment and labor practice at the Wickens Herzer Panza law firm, said the Meta lawsuit is a warning to employers who rely on artificial intelligence to guide critical employment decisions. While AI can be a valuable tool to inform those decisions, if it penalizes employees for protected absences, disabilities or other legally protected characteristics, employers will be held accountable, he said. Meta laid off 10% of its global workforce in May - about 8,000 people - part of a restructuring as the company increases its use of AI. "The legal question won't be whether an employer used AI but whether it blindly trusted it," Hyman said. "The companies that fare best won't be those that avoid AI altogether, but those that rigorously audit it, understand how it reaches its recommendations and ensure that a human exercises independent judgment before any employment decision is made."

26 Meta employees sue, alleging AI-driven layoff picks hit workers on medical and parental leave

A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave. They are among the 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its workforce, Meta said it would lay off in May. The lawsuit filed late Monday in federal court in Oakland, California, claims the company used internal AI systems, keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards and algorithmically assisted performance rankings, among other methods, to determine who would be laid off. Many of these scores and ratings "by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the lawsuit says. Meta, according to the lawsuit, did not account for protected leave when taking employees' scores into account and "did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires." As a result, people on protected medical or family leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs, the lawsuit says. Each of the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit took protected leave and requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability. Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22. Many workers were on parental leave Many of the employees in the lawsuit took pregnancy or parental leave, during which time they wouldn't have worked and thus had their measured output reduced. Others took medical leave -- one disclosed a "serious health condition and disability" that was approved by Meta's own provider. But according to the lawsuit, he was "discouraged and deterred from taking that leave by a manager" who warned that doing so would result in his selection for the anticipated layoffs. Meta offered no accommodation for his disability, the lawsuit says. Meta said in a statement that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons. Eight are women who had taken maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four are men who had taken parental leave and one is a woman who had taken leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave. The lawsuit says the layoffs violated several state and federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Lawsuit cites 'disparate impact' The complaint also references "disparate impact liability," a longstanding civil rights concept that President Donald Trump's administration moved to abandon. Disparate impact, codified in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, holds that facially neutral policies or practices can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden a protected class of workers and aren't necessary for the job. The Trump administration has ordered federal agencies to deprioritize disparate impact liability enforcement, arguing that its use undermines "meritocracy" and encourages the assumption that any racial or gender imbalance in a workforce is the result of discrimination. The order has led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to drop discrimination cases on behalf of some workers. However, the lawsuit against Meta underscores that companies remain vulnerable to disparate impact litigation in the age of AI despite the Trump administration's efforts to stamp out its enforcement. Workers are still free to pursue such lawsuits on their own if the EEOC rejects their complaints, and several state laws specifically prohibit disparate impact discrimination. In the case against Meta, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the company's "algorithmically assisted selection process, by systematically recording such absences as reduced performance, falls more heavily on women than on men." That's because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave, according to the lawyers. The lawsuit cites Title VII's prohibition on employment practices that have a disparate impact, as well as a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that recognized the doctrine. The plaintiffs' lawyers said in a statement that the lawsuit asks for one thing -- preserving the status quo to keep the workers employed pending arbitration. That's because "once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidized health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered." -- The Associated Press' women in the workforce coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

26 Meta Employees Sue, Alleging AI-Driven Layoff Picks Hit Workers on Medical and Parental Leave

A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave. They are among the 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its workforce, Meta said it would lay off in May. The lawsuit filed late Monday in federal court in Oakland, California, claims the company used internal AI systems, keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards and algorithmically assisted performance rankings, among other methods, to determine who would be laid off. Many of these scores and ratings "by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the lawsuit says. Meta, according to the lawsuit, did not account for protected leave when taking employees' scores into account and "did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires." As a result, people on protected medical or family leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs, the lawsuit says. Each of the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit took protected leave and requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability. Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22. Many workers were on parental leave Many of the employees in the lawsuit took pregnancy or parental leave, during which time they wouldn't have worked and thus had their measured output reduced. Others took medical leave -- one disclosed a "serious health condition and disability" that was approved by Meta's own provider. But according to the lawsuit, he was "discouraged and deterred from taking that leave by a manager" who warned that doing so would result in his selection for the anticipated layoffs. Meta offered no accommodation for his disability, the lawsuit says. Meta said in a statement that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons. Eight are women who had taken maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four are men who had taken parental leave and one is a woman who had taken leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave. The lawsuit says the layoffs violated several state and federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Lawsuit cites 'disparate impact' The complaint also references "disparate impact liability," a longstanding civil rights concept that President Donald Trump's administration moved to abandon. Disparate impact, codified in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, holds that facially neutral policies or practices can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden a protected class of workers and aren't necessary for the job. The Trump administration has ordered federal agencies to deprioritize disparate impact liability enforcement, arguing that its use undermines "meritocracy" and encourages the assumption that any racial or gender imbalance in a workforce is the result of discrimination. The order has led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to drop discrimination cases on behalf of some workers. However, the lawsuit against Meta underscores that companies remain vulnerable to disparate impact litigation in the age of AI despite the Trump administration's efforts to stamp out its enforcement. Workers are still free to pursue such lawsuits on their own if the EEOC rejects their complaints, and several state laws specifically prohibit disparate impact discrimination. In the case against Meta, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the company's "algorithmically assisted selection process, by systematically recording such absences as reduced performance, falls more heavily on women than on men." That's because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave, according to the lawyers. The lawsuit cites Title VII's prohibition on employment practices that have a disparate impact, as well as a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that recognized the doctrine. The plaintiffs' lawyers said in a statement that the lawsuit asks for one thing -- preserving the status quo to keep the workers employed pending arbitration. That's because "once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidized health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered." -- The Associated Press' women in the workforce coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

US judge won't block Meta from laying off workers who filed AI discrimination lawsuit

District Judge William Orrick in Oakland, California, in a written order said he would not stop Meta from carrying out the layoffs beginning July 22 while the merits of the workers' novel legal claims are decided in private arbitration. The lawsuit filed on Monday claims that in selecting jobs to cut, Meta relied on AI tools that measured productivity and AI token usage, disadvantaging people who missed work because of medical conditions or to care for family members. A US judge on Friday rejected a bid by 26 employees of Meta Platforms to block the tech giant from laying them off while they pursue claims that they were targeted for job cuts by the company's AI-powered tools because they have disabilities or took medical leave. U.S. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland, California, in a written order said he would not stop Meta from carrying out the layoffs beginning July 22 while the merits of the workers' novel legal claims are decided in private arbitration. The judge said the workers could not show that losing their jobs amounted to ⁠the "irreparable harm" ⁠required for him to issue an emergency order blocking the layoffs. Meta and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company has denied wrongdoing and said that decisions involving the layoffs were made by humans. Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs as the company doubles down on its investments in AI. The lawsuit filed on Monday claims that in selecting jobs to cut, Meta relied on AI tools that measured productivity and AI token usage, disadvantaging people who missed work because of medical conditions or to care for family members. The company also relied on performance reviews based in part on employees' adoption of AI, the plaintiffs said. The case appears to be the first against a major U.S. company to challenge the ⁠alleged use of AI in conducting layoffs. 'No do-over' The plaintiffs had asked Orrick for a temporary restraining order blocking Meta from completing its layoffs while they pursue their claims in private arbitration. Their motion for a preliminary injunction, a longer-lasting temporary order, is pending and Orrick during the hearing on Thursday said ⁠he would likely rule on it next month. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said during a hearing on Thursday that along with their jobs and salaries, the workers stood to lose valuable stock options and their health insurance, imperiling their medical care for pregnancies and other conditions. "There's no do-over for bonding with a new baby or giving birth or having active medical treatment," one of the lawyers, Barbara Cowan, told Orrick. Erin Connell, who represents Meta, countered that the workers were losing only employer-subsidised insurance, and not their coverage altogether. Those are the typical kinds of damages that can be recouped later on if the plaintiffs win their cases in arbitration, Connell said. The workers say Meta's agreements require employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually, but do not apply to requests for temporary relief. Most workers at large companies sign arbitration agreements, which generally require employees to pursue workplace claims individually rather than through class actions in court. Companies say arbitration can provide a faster, cheaper alternative to litigation, while critics say it often favors employers and discourages workers from bringing claims. Exceptions in arbitration agreements for temporary relief are common, but they are typically invoked in cases involving the alleged theft of trade secrets or the solicitation of clients or employees, and not ⁠layoffs of at-will employees. The plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit anonymously, include engineers, managers, researchers and designers. They were notified in May of the layoffs, which are scheduled to be finalised on July 22 for many workers and later in July or August for others, according to court filings. Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20 and have not performed work for the company since, Meta said in court filings. They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list. Those included a large language model assistant known as "Metamate," an employee-trained "second brain" that tracked workers' communications and documents, and a productivity score drawn from scanning keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history, according to the lawsuit. Meta did not pause these systems while employees were on vacations and legally protected leave periods, and their AI adoption scores used as inputs for layoff selection dropped as a result, the plaintiffs said.

Meta Workers on Maternity and Medical Leave Claim Tech Giant's AI Punished Them for Being Away

Meta's next layoffs could take effect July 22. Twenty-six employees are asking a federal judge to stop them. The workers sued Meta on Monday in Oakland, California, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking an injunction while they pursue individual discrimination claims in arbitration. The complaint says Meta considered employee activity, code output, AI-tool usage and algorithmically assisted performance rankings when selecting roughly 8,000 workers for layoffs. Employees who took medical, pregnancy, or family leave could not accumulate those measures at the same rate as colleagues who worked uninterrupted, the plaintiffs allege.

Meta Employees Sue Over AI-Assisted Layoffs, Claim Workers on 'Protected' Medical Leave Were 'Disproporti

The lawsuit was filed by 26 employees late Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, with the plaintiffs seeking to halt the layoffs while their claims proceed. Lawsuit Challenges AI-Assisted Layoffs "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work," the 71-page complaint states. Instead, the plaintiffs allege the company relied on a range of AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for layoffs, including its 'Metamate' large language model assistant, employee-trained 'second brain' agents, AI token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance-ranking tools. The lawsuit alleges the company failed to account for employees on protected medical or family leave before using those metrics in the layoff process. "The result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves," the complaint states. Meta Denies Allegations Meta Communications Director Andy Stone rejected the claims, saying workforce decisions were made by people rather than AI. "These claims lack merit. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," Stone said in a post on X. Layoffs Coincided With AI Spending Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees, or roughly 10% of its workforce, of layoffs in May as part of a broader restructuring tied to the company's growing AI investments. Earlier this month, CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly told employees the company's AI-driven reorganization had not progressed as rapidly as executives had expected. On Monday, the company accelerated its AI infrastructure buildout, with the cost of its Hyperion data center project in Louisiana exceeding $50 billion. Price Action: Shares of Meta have risen 1.63% year-to-date and fallen 8.31% over the past year. It closed 0.66% higher on Tuesday at $661.04 and edged 0.02% up in extended trading. Benzinga edge rankings indicate Meta has a Momentum score in the 30th percentile and a Growth score in the 88th percentile. Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo Courtesy: 24K-Production on Shutterstock.com Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Meta used AI to target workers with medical conditions for layoffs, lawsuit claims

Twenty-six employees of Meta Platforms have filed a novel lawsuit accusing the tech giant of using AI-powered software that disproportionately targeted people with disabilities or who took medical leave in selecting workers for mass layoffs. The lawsuit, filed in Oakland, California, federal court late Monday, says that the company relied on factors such as productivity and AI token usage when it slashed thousands of jobs earlier this year, disadvantaging people who missed work because of medical ⁠conditions or to care for family members. The plaintiffs, who were notified in May that their jobs ⁠would be eliminated starting on July 22, are seeking a preliminary ruling from the court blocking Meta from completing the layoffs while they pursue their claims in private arbitration. The workers say Meta's agreements ⁠require employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually, but do not apply to requests for temporary relief. A Meta spokesperson on Tuesday said the claims ⁠lack merit. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," the spokesperson said. The lawsuit appears to be the first against a major U.S. company to challenge the alleged use of AI in conducting layoffs. Meta laid off 10% of its global workforce in May, or nearly 8,000 people, and was planning more job cuts later this year, it was reported. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has since said that he does not expect any more company-wide layoffs this year. The changes are part of a far-reaching overhaul as the company increases its AI investments and centers AI agents in both its product offerings and its approach to work internally. The 26 plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit anonymously, are accusing Meta of violating federal and state laws that ban discrimination or retaliation against workers who have disabilities, take medical leave or are pregnant. They also claim that Meta failed ⁠to test its AI systems for bias in violation of recently adopted California and New York City laws. The plaintiffs come from six states, including California and New York, and the District of Columbia. According to the complaint, Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list. Those included "Metamate," a large language model assistant; an employee-trained "second brain" that tracked workers' communications and documents; and a productivity score drawn from scanning keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history, according to the lawsuit.

Meta's AI Layoff Algorithm Reportedly Ranked Workers With Medical Conditions For Termination, And 26 Employees Are Now Suing To Block It

In what is likely to be the first of many such lawsuits that target silicon valley bigwigs, a number of Meta employees who were recently laid off are now accusing an AI-powered algorithm for disproportionately targeting workers with pre-existing medical conditions. Around 26 Meta employees are now alleging that the tech giant relied on factors such as productivity and AI use in deciding which workers get axed, disadvantaging those who missed work due to medical complications As many as 26 Meta employees have now anonymously filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Oakland, California, accusing the company of disproportionately targeting employees with disabilities, or ones who took medical leaves, in its upcoming round of layoffs that commence on July 22. According to the plaintiffs, they were notified back in May that their current roles at Meta would be terminated in late July. Do note that the social media giant laid off around 10 percent of its workforce - equal to ~8,000 employees - in May, with further cuts possibly in the offing even though Mark Zuckerburg, the CEO of Meta, recently asserted that there would be no further layoffs in the ongoing year. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the upcoming terminations, citing state and federal laws that ban any discrimination or retaliation against employees with existing medical conditions, or ones who are either pregnant or take medical leaves. The complaint cites a number of AI-powered tools that Meta supposedly used to rank employees on a termination list, including the 'Metamate' tool that tracks internal employee communications. Meta also supposedly tracked worker productivity by actively scanning keystrokes, screen content, emails, and browser history of each employee. Basically, the plaintiffs feel that their medical conditions and leaves unduly penalized them on metrics such as productivity and AI use, leading to their termination. Meta's AI strategy in a flux Meanwhile, Meta's overarching AI strategy is in a bit of a flux at the moment. A few days back, the company spurred a lot of questions when it launched Meta Compute, an initiative that aims to rent out its inference-related compute capacity, adopting a page out of the playbook currently being used by most neoclouds. Concurrently, Meta plans to start manufacturing its own ASIC, dubbed Iris, come September. The chip has been designed in partnership with Broadcom, and will be manufactured by TSMC. Do note that the tech titan is one of the heaviest spenders on AI at the moment, aiming to deploy 7 gigawatts of compute capacity by the end of 2026, which entails a CapEx of $145 billion. It also plans to double this capacity to 14 gigawatts by next year. More recently, Meta launched a paid tier of its flagship AI model, dubbed Muse 1.1, which is competitive with the latest Gemini models. The company is opting for low-cost inference as its distinguishing factor relative to the recent offerings from Anthropic and OpenAI. Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.

Meta sued: AI helped choose whom to lay off, but missed an important detail

A total of 26 employees claim that AI systems were utilized by Meta to rank staff ahead of a wave of layoffs, failing to distinguish between a lack of productivity and an approved absence. When companies discuss integrating artificial intelligence into the workplace, they typically promise efficiency, speed, and enhanced decision-making. But what happens when the system evaluates an employee who did not type, write code, or utilize AI tools, simply because they were away on parental or sick leave? This is the central question in a new lawsuit filed by 26 employees against Meta. They allege that the tech giant utilized AI-based systems and activity metrics to rank employees and determine who would be laid off, without properly accounting for periods when staff were absent due to medical or family reasons. The lawsuit was filed in the federal court in Oakland, California, following a wave of layoffs announced by Meta in May. The employees claim that while company executives publicly framed the downsizing as a human-driven process, automated systems were operating behind the scenes to harvest data, compare workers, and ultimately determine who would stay and who would go. AI saw a drop in productivity but did not know why According to the statement of claim, Meta scrutinized a broad spectrum of data: Work productivity, code modifications, performance evaluations, usage of artificial intelligence tools, and overall activity on company computers. Among the allegations, workers were reportedly ranked based on the volume of their interactions with internal AI tools. Those who engaged more frequently with the systems, executed more tasks, and demonstrated higher output allegedly received superior scores. However, the plaintiffs argue that the systems lacked the capacity to differentiate between an underperforming employee and one who was inactive due to an authorized leave of absence. Consequently, any employee away on sick leave, maternity leave, parental leave, or family care leave failed to accumulate productivity metrics, utilize internal tools, or generate computer activity. When their metrics were measured against colleagues who remained in the office and continued to work as usual, their scores were severely impacted. According to the plaintiffs, the practical result was that a metric appearing entirely neutral on paper effectively penalized employees who took leaves of absence that are legally protected. Returned from maternity leave and received a layoff notice Approximately half of the plaintiffs were absent from work due to pregnancy, childbirth, parenting, or caring for family members. Others were on leave due to company-approved medical conditions or disabilities. One employee, according to the lawsuit, returned from a six-month maternity and parental leave - only to receive her termination notice less than two weeks after stepping back into the office. Another employee claims he was explicitly assured that his medical leave would not negatively impact his performance evaluation. Despite this assurance, he was selected for termination while still on leave. He noted that the only two individuals on his team selected for layoffs were himself and a colleague who was away on maternity leave. The plaintiffs are not necessarily arguing that the system was intentionally programmed to target women, parents, or employees with medical conditions. Their argument is more nuanced: When a system solely measures activity and output, without understanding the context behind an employee's absence, it can generate discriminatory outcomes even without prior intent. Meta: Humans made the decisions Meta rejects the allegations. The company stated that the claims are entirely groundless and emphasized that decisions regarding organizational restructuring and workforce management were, and continue to be, made by humans rather than artificial intelligence. The lawsuit itself does not explicitly claim that an AI system independently finalized the terminations. Rather, the core dispute centers on a different question: To what extent did the automated rankings, scores, and data points influence the managers who ultimate made the final decisions. The employees are seeking to temporarily halt their terminations until their claims can be thoroughly evaluated in a legal proceeding or arbitration. They contend that the layoffs threaten to strip them not only of their salaries, but also of health insurance, unvested shares, and, in several instances, the work visas required to remain in the country. The legal action remains in its early stages, and the allegations raised by the plaintiffs have yet to be proven in court.

Meta employees sue, alleging AI-driven layoff picks hit workers on medical, parental leave

Meta faces a lawsuit from twenty-six employees alleging AI selection for layoffs. These workers claim the company's systems unfairly targeted those on medical and family leave. The complaint states that AI did not account for protected leave periods. This process allegedly resulted in a disproportionate impact on women and disabled individuals. The lawsuit seeks to preserve employment status pending arbitration proceedings. A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave. They are among the 8,000 employees, or about 10 per cent of its workforce, Meta said it would lay off in May. The lawsuit filed late Monday in federal court in Oakland, California, claims the company used internal AI systems, keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards and algorithmically assisted performance rankings, among other methods, to determine who would be laid off. Many of these scores and ratings "by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the lawsuit says. Meta, according to the lawsuit, did not account for protected leave when taking employees' scores into account and "did not pause the system for the individualised, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires." As a result, people on protected medical or family leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs, the lawsuit says. Each of the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit took protected leave and requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability. Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22. Many workers were on parental leave Many of the employees in the lawsuit took pregnancy or parental leave, during which time they wouldn't have worked and thus had their measured output reduced. Others took medical leave -- one disclosed a "serious health condition and disability" that was approved by Meta's own provider. But according to the lawsuit, he was "discouraged and deterred from taking that leave by a manager" who warned that doing so would result in his selection for the anticipated layoffs. Meta offered no accommodation for his disability, the lawsuit says. Meta said in a statement that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organisational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons. Eight are women who had taken maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four are men who had taken parental leave and one is a woman who had taken leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave. The lawsuit says the layoffs violated several state and federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Lawsuit cites disparate impact --------------------------------- The complaint also references "disparate impact liability," a longstanding civil rights concept that President Donald Trump's administration moved to abandon. Disparate impact, codified in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, holds that facially neutral policies or practices can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden a protected class of workers and aren't necessary for the job. The Trump administration has ordered federal agencies to deprioritise disparate impact liability enforcement, arguing that its use undermines "meritocracy" and encourages the assumption that any racial or gender imbalance in a workforce is the result of discrimination. The order has led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to drop discrimination cases on behalf of some workers. However, the lawsuit against Meta underscores that companies remain vulnerable to disparate impact litigation in the age of AI despite the Trump administration's efforts to stamp out its enforcement. Workers are still free to pursue such lawsuits on their own if the EEOC rejects their complaints, and several state laws specifically prohibit disparate impact discrimination. In the case against Meta, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the company's "algorithmically assisted selection process, by systematically recording such absences as reduced performance, falls more heavily on women than on men." That's because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave, according to the lawyers. The lawsuit cites Title VII's prohibition on employment practices that have a disparate impact, as well as a landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that recognised the doctrine. The plaintiffs' lawyers said in a statement that the lawsuit asks for one thing -- preserving the status quo to keep the workers employed pending arbitration. That's because "once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidised health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered."

Former employees accuse Meta of using AI to target workers on leave

There's no sugarcoating it; getting laid off is awful. But if you've been following the news, it feels like tech workers are being laid off left and right. Here's what one Reddit user, who was recently laid off from an account executive role at a tech company, had to say on the r/Layoffs subreddit: "A lot of my friends in tech have also been laid off (developers, salespeople, marketers, the lot). Honestly, I'm done with tech, I'm done with corporate, and I'm done with the humiliation rituals." A lot of it is potentially AI, or at least that's what tech companies want everyone to believe. But there may be another, far darker possibility. What if the technology is being used to identify who is easiest to push out? That concern is at the heart of a lawsuit involving Meta, according to Reuters, with former employees making allegations that could reshape how workers think about AI in the workplace. Meta allegedly used AI to penalize workers taking medical leave According to Reuters, 26 current and former Meta employees have sued the tech giant, alleging that AI-assisted productivity systems unfairly placed workers with medical conditions or those on protected leave on its layoff list. The complaint was filed July 13 in federal court in Oakland by employees from six states and Washington, D.C., Courthouse News reported. All the plaintiffs requested protected leave, sought disability accommodations, or faced alleged interference with those rights. It's important to note that the lawsuit doesn't claim Meta feeds medical diagnoses into an algorithm. Instead, the plaintiffs argue the company relied on productivity signals that served as proxies for disability, pregnancy, and family leave. Naturally, workers who were absent for medical, maternity, parental, or caregiving reasons logged fewer code commits, lower AI-tool usage, and less digital activity. Meta allegedly treated those gaps as evidence of weaker performance or engagement without adjusting for protected leave. For context, it goes back to Meta's bombshell May 20 decision to slash 8,000 jobs, or nearly 10% of its workforce, according to NPR News, while pushing 7,000 employees into AI-related roles and flattening management layers. Similarly, I recently covered Microsoft's job cuts, including 4,800 immediate layoffs and a deeper restructuring across its Xbox gaming division. Xbox is also expected to slash 3,200 positions through fiscal 2027, with several studios being spun off or moved toward new ownership. Moreover, Meta made use of a "constellation" of AI-assisted tools instead of a single layoff algorithm. Here's what those tools included: * MetaMate, Meta's internal AI assistant, as Business Insider noted * Employee-built "second brain" AI agents * Performance calibration systems * AI token usage leaderboards * Code commit data * Broader digital activity signals Meta has denied the allegations, saying the lawsuit lacks merit and that people, not AI, made the final workforce decisions. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images What laws is Meta accused of violating? * Medical and family leave: The complaint alleges FMLA and California Family Rights Act interference and retaliation, arguing Meta treated protected absences as a negative factor. * Gender and pregnancy discrimination: Plaintiffs invoke Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, alleging intentional discrimination and an unjustified disparate impact on women and caregivers. * Disability and accommodation: Claims under the ADA and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act accuse Meta of disability discrimination, retaliation, and failing to provide pregnancy or disability accommodations. * California AI rules: Plaintiffs cite FEHA's automated-decision regulations and Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, arguing neutral algorithmic inputs produced discriminatory outcomes. * Additional state protections: The filing also brings claims under Washington, New York, New York City, D.C., Florida, and Illinois civil rights or paid leave laws. Source: Does 1 Through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc., complaint filed July 13, 2026, Counts I-XVIII, via Courthouse News What Meta could argue against the AI discrimination claims Meta's first and most obvious line of defense? The tech behemoth said people, not AI, made the final layoff decisions. However, that doesn't shield the Facebook parent from the claims that its managers were heavily reliant on flawed productivity scores, discriminatory proxy variables, or automated rankings that penalized protected leave. There's also the argument that those layoffs were part of a legitimate restructuring. Roles were slashed, management layers were flattened, and resources were redirected toward AI initiatives. The potential argument could be that employees were picked not due to discrimination, but because of duplication, performance, organizational need, or strategic alignment. For now, the big question is whether the plaintiffs can effectively connect Meta's internal AI systems to the layoff decisions. The complaint also identifies alleged inputs, including AI usage, code commits, performance ratings, and output, but doesn't touch on the underlying formula, model weights, source code, or entire statistical analysis showing selection rates. Moreover, it remains unclear whether Meta adjusted performance metrics for time away from work or applied the same process across every team. Nevertheless, it adds to the growing skepticism toward AI, particularly among tech workers. The Meta complaint also comes after Tesla CEO Elon Musk suggested that work could become optional in a future of universal high income, sparking a reality check from noted investor Michael Burry.

Meta employees allege discriminatory AI-driven layoffs - The Korea Times

The logo of Meta at the Meta Lab in California, May 20. Reuters-Yonhap SAN FRANCISCO -- Twenty-six Meta employees have filed a lawsuit accusing the tech giant of using artificial intelligence (AI) to select workers for mass layoffs, a claim strongly denied by the trillion dollar company. They are among the 8,000 employees -- some 10 percent of the workforce -- Meta said it would lay off in spring, as it pushes to redirect resources toward an ambitious AI agenda. According to the lawsuit, filed in Oakland, California on Monday Meta used AI systems to "score, rank, and select employees" to be laid off rather than "the considered judgement of managers who knew the work" while disproportionately targeting those on medical or family leave. The AI systems relied on "performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics" -- markers that cannot be accumulated by an employee on medical or family leave and may be reduced for people with disabilities. Meta "did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires," the 71-page complaint said. All 26 employees took or requested protected leave, or requested or received a reasonable accommodation for disability, it noted. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," a Meta spokesperson was quoted saying by multiple U.S. outlets including CNBC and the Verge. A Meta spokesperson told CNBC in an email that the "claims lack merit and are not based on facts." Meta did not immediately respond to AFP's request for comment. Meta's cuts are funding a massive race for infrastructure, with the company planning to spend up to $145 billion on AI investments this year, nearly twice last year's figure.

Judge won't block Meta from axing workers who filed AI discrimination lawsuit

A US judge on Friday rejected a bid by 26 employees of Meta Platforms to block the tech giant from laying them off while they pursue claims that they were targeted for job cuts by the company's AI-powered tools because they have disabilities or took medical leave. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland, Calif., in a written order said he would not stop Meta from carrying out the layoffs beginning July 22 while the merits of the workers' novel legal claims are decided in private arbitration. The judge said the workers could not show that losing their jobs amounted to the "irreparable harm" required for him to issue an emergency order blocking the layoffs. Meta and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company has denied wrongdoing and said that decisions involving the layoffs were made by humans. Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs as the company doubles down on its investments in AI. The lawsuit filed on Monday claims that in selecting jobs to cut, Meta relied on AI tools that measured productivity and AI token usage, disadvantaging people who missed work because of medical conditions or to care for family ⁠members. The company also relied on performance reviews based in part on employees' adoption of AI, the plaintiffs said. The case appears to be the first against a major US company to challenge the alleged use of AI in conducting layoffs. 'No do-over' The plaintiffs had asked Orrick for a temporary restraining order blocking Meta from completing its layoffs while they pursue their claims in private arbitration. Their motion for a preliminary injunction, a longer-lasting temporary order, is pending and Orrick during the hearing on Thursday said he would likely rule on it next month. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said during a hearing on Thursday that along with their jobs and salaries, the workers stood to lose valuable stock options and their health insurance, imperiling their medical care for pregnancies and other conditions. "There's no do-over for bonding with a new baby or giving birth or having active medical treatment," one of the lawyers, Barbara Cowan, told Orrick. Erin Connell, who represents Meta, countered that the workers were losing only employer-subsidized insurance, and not their coverage altogether. Those are the typical kinds of damages that can be recouped later on if the plaintiffs win their cases in arbitration, Connell said. The workers say Meta's agreements require employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually, but do not apply to requests for temporary relief. Most workers at large companies sign arbitration agreements, which generally require employees to pursue workplace claims individually rather than through class actions in court. Companies say arbitration can provide a faster, cheaper alternative to litigation, while critics say it often favors employers and discourages workers from bringing claims. Exceptions in arbitration agreements for temporary relief are common, but they are typically invoked in cases involving the alleged theft of trade secrets or the solicitation of clients or employees, and not layoffs of at-will employees. The plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit anonymously, include engineers, managers, researchers and designers. They were notified in May of the layoffs, which are scheduled to be finalized on July 22 for many workers and later in July or August for others, according to court filings. Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20 and have not performed work for the company since, Meta said in court filings. They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees ⁠on a termination list. Those included a large language model assistant known as "Metamate," an employee-trained "second brain" that tracked workers' communications and documents, and a productivity score drawn from scanning keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history, according to the lawsuit. Meta did not pause these systems while employees were on vacations and legally protected leave periods, and their AI adoption scores used as inputs for layoff selection dropped as a result, the plaintiffs said.

Did Meta Use AI to Decide on Layoffs? Company Responds

Meta has flatly denied the allegations, with a spokesperson stating that "workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI." centers on Meta's May 2026 layoffs, which eliminated roughly 8,000 employees around 10% of its global workforce, as the company repositioned itself as an 'AI-first' organization. The plaintiffs, whose identities have been redacted from court filings, include engineers, managers, researchers, designers, and at least one director with direct access to the AI platform in question. They allege Meta's selection process relied on an internal large language model called Metamate, which was trained on employee communications and documents, alongside algorithmic productivity scores derived from keystroke activity, browser history, and email data, as well as internal records of AI token consumption and AI-assisted performance review tools. Crucially, the complaint argues this scoring framework failed to account for time spent on legally protected leave, meaning employees who had taken maternity, parental, or medical absence were effectively penalized for reduced output during periods when they were legally entitled to be away. Nearly half of the plaintiffs say their termination directly followed protected leave. "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work," the complaint states, a framing that puts the case squarely at the intersection of employment discrimination law and algorithmic accountability.

Meta accused of using AI to target workers on medical leave in bloodbath layoffs: lawsuit

Meta is facing a lawsuit from 26 employees accusing the tech giant of using AI-powered software that disproportionately selected workers with disabilities and those who took medical leave to be impacted in a round of layoffs earlier this year. The company allegedly used an internal bot known as "Metamate;" "second-brain" agents that were trained by workers; AI-usage dashboards; and keystroke and computer activity data to root out unproductive workers, according to the suit filed Monday in Oakland, Calif., federal court. But this tech failed to account for workers who were out on valid medical leave - and "in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves," according to the suit. A Meta spokesperson denied the claims in the suit, saying they lack merit. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," a Meta spokesperson told The Post. Reuters earlier reported the case. It's seemingly the first lawsuit targeting a major company for allegedly using AI in carrying out layoffs. In May, Mark Zuckerberg's Meta kicked off a bloodbath round of 8,000 job cuts - nearly 10% of its global workforce and among the largest layoff rounds in its history - as it ramped up its AI investment plans. Another 7,000 staffers were also reassigned to AI-focused roles. The 26 plaintiffs - a group of anonymous Meta managers, engineers, scientists and researchers from California, New York and Washington, DC - are asking the court to block Meta from completing the layoffs while they arbitrate their workplace disputes individually. The suit alleged Meta ranked employees on a termination list using data from keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history - effectively tanking the ratings for employees who had been out on leave and logging fewer hours. Meta's layoff practices violated federal and state laws that ban discrimination or retaliation against workers with disabilities and those who take medical leave or are pregnant, according to the suit. Plaintiffs also alleged Meta did not test its AI systems for bias, which would violate new legislation in California and New York City. In the spring, Meta leadership said the layoffs were an attempt to boost the firm's efficiency as it ramped up spending on artificial intelligence. So far this year, nearly a third of all job cuts have hit the tech sector - and AI came in as the leading reason for announced layoffs in June for the fourth month in a row, Challenger, Gray & Christmas said in a report earlier this month. Meta has said it plans to spend $125 billion to $145 billion this year alone on AI infrastructure, including power-hungry data centers - and the chips needed to power them. A huge boost in demand has caused severe memory-chip shortages, sending costs skyrocketing. Tech giants like Apple and Xbox have hiked prices on their gadgets, blaming the higher component costs. In the meantime, investors have grown concerned that huge spending on AI might not result in blowout earnings - creating an "AI bubble" akin to the "dot-com bubble" of the early 2000s.

Meta faces lawsuit over alleged AI use to layoff employees with medical conditions

The employees alleged that these systems unfairly affected people with disabilities and those who took medical leave. Meta is facing a lawsuit from employees who claim the company used AI-powered tools to select workers for mass layoffs. The employees alleged that these systems unfairly affected people with disabilities and those who took medical leave. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Oakland, California, by 26 employees. According to the complaint, Meta used factors such as employee productivity and AI token usage while deciding which jobs to cut. The workers claimed this approach put employees who missed work due to medical conditions or family care duties at a disadvantage, reports Reuters. The employees who filed the lawsuit were informed in May that their jobs would be eliminated starting July 22. They are now asking the court to temporarily stop Meta from completing the layoffs while their claims go through private arbitration. Also read: Google DeepMind CEO calls for new AI regulator, Sam Altman and Sundar Pichai react Meta has denied the allegations. A company spokesperson said the claims lack merit. "Workforce management and organisational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," the spokesperson was quoted as saying in the report. The case appears to be the first lawsuit against a major US company challenging the alleged use of AI in making layoff decisions. Meta reportedly cut around 10 percent of its global workforce in May. This affected nearly 8,000 employees. The layoffs came as the company increased its investment in AI. The employees behind the lawsuit have filed their claims anonymously. They are from six states, including California and New York, as well as the District of Columbia. In the complaint, the workers accused Meta of breaking federal and state laws that protect employees with disabilities, those who take medical leave and pregnant workers. They also allege that Meta failed to properly test its AI systems for bias under newer laws in California and New York City. Also read: OpenAI's first AI device may be a screenless ChatGPT speaker with a camera: What to expect According to the lawsuit, Meta used several internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank workers for a termination list. The lawsuit named Metamate, a large language model assistant, as one of the tools used. It also referred to an employee-trained "second brain" that allegedly tracked workers' communications and documents. Meta even used a productivity score based on information such as keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history, as per the complaint.