A lawsuit has been filed against Meta by a group of 26 employees, alleging that the company utilized artificial intelligence systems to identify individuals for termination, with a focus on those on medical, parental, or family leave. These employees are part of the 8,000 individuals, roughly 10% of Meta’s workforce, slated for layoffs as announced in May. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Oakland, California, claims that Meta employed various methods, including internal AI systems, keystroke and activity monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance rankings, to determine the selection for layoffs.
The lawsuit highlights that many of the evaluation criteria could not be met by employees on protected medical or family leave, resulting in their disproportionate selection for termination. Meta allegedly failed to consider protected leave when assessing employees’ scores and did not adhere to the requisite individualized review for those on leave or in need of accommodation, as mandated by law. Consequently, individuals on protected medical or family leave were reportedly more likely to be chosen for layoffs, including all 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit who had taken protected leave or requested accommodation for disability.
Despite receiving layoff notifications, all 26 employees remain employed by Meta, with separations scheduled to commence on July 22. The lawsuit also mentions that many employees on parental leave or medical leave had their measured output reduced due to their absence from work. One employee, who had a documented serious health condition and disability approved by Meta’s provider, purportedly faced discouragement from taking leave by a manager who insinuated that doing so would increase the likelihood of being laid off. Allegedly, Meta did not provide accommodation for the disability in this instance.
In response to the allegations, Meta stated that the claims were without merit and not based on facts, emphasizing that decisions regarding workforce management and organization were made by humans, not AI. Approximately half of the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons, with eight women on maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four men on parental leave, and one woman on leave for caregiving and bereavement purposes. The lawsuit asserts that the layoffs violated multiple 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 plaintiffs’ legal representatives have indicated that the lawsuit seeks to maintain the current employment status of the workers until arbitration, as the irreversible consequences of final separations include loss of employer-subsidized health coverage during critical periods, forfeiture of unvested equity, and triggering of immigration-related repercussions.
