Did Meta use artificial intelligence to decide which employees would lose their jobs? A lawsuit filed by 26 current and former workers claims that Meta depended on internal AI systems and workplace metrics that unfairly disadvantaged employees with disabilities, pregnancy-associated requires, or authorized medical and family leave. Meta denies the allegations and says people, not AI, made its workforce decisions.
Workers Challenge Meta’s Layoff Process
The unnamed plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They were reportedly most of the employees impacted by Meta’s May layoffs, which lessen the company’s workforce by about 10%.
The workers allege that Meta violated protected leave and employment discrimination laws. Although they plan to pursue their individual claims through arbitration, they asked the court to maintain their employment while the dispute proceeds.
Their attorneys also asked an independent audit of the process used to select for termination.
AI Metrics May Have Penalized Protected Leave
At the center of the lawsuit is what the complaint explains as a “constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems.”
As per the plaintiffs, these systems assessed information together with performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity measurements, output metrics, “AI-native” ratings, and AI token consumption.
The workers claims that employees cannot collect those measurements at the same rate while taking approved leave or operating with disability-associated accommodations. As a outcome, the systems may have explained lower activity as weaker performance without accounting for the circumstances behind it.
The complaint also challenges the use of token consumption as a proxy for AI adoption. Although token usage can display how frequently an worker engages with certain AI tools, it does not necessarily measure work quality, productivity, or overall contribution.
Meta Denies AI Made Layoff Decisions
A Meta spokesperson stated the claims lack merit and aren’t based on facts.
The company keeps that workforce management and organizational choices had been made by people instead of artificial intelligence. The lawsuit, moreover, raises a wider governance query: Can a decision stay fully human when managers depend on algorithmically created scores and recommendations?
That distinction could become increasingly vital as companies combine AI into performance management, recruiting, promotion, and workforce planning.
Employment AI Faces Growing Legal Scrutiny
The Meta lawsuit follows a separate legal challenge involving Workday’s AI-powered recruiting tools. A federal judge lately ruled that Workday need to face claims alleging that its screening technology contributed to unlawful employment discrimination.
Workday has denied those allegations. The company stated its technology analyses job qualifications instead of protected characteristics and undergoes testing out through its Responsible AI program.
Together, the cases display why employment AI needs more than technical accuracy. Organizations must also look at data quality, proxy variables, accessibility, auditability, and the potential effects on protected groups.
What’s Next?
As AI moves deeper into hiring, overall performance analyzation, and workforce planning, data professionals will play a central role in detecting biased inputs and constructing responsible decision systems.
