A lawsuit has been filed by a group of 26 Meta employees alleging that the company utilized artificial intelligence systems to select individuals for layoffs, with a focus on those on medical, parental, or family leave. These employees are part of the 8,000 workers, approximately 10% of the workforce, that Meta announced would be laid off in May. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Oakland, California, claims that Meta employed internal AI systems, keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance rankings to determine the layoff decisions.
According to the lawsuit, the scoring and ratings used by Meta could not be accumulated by employees on protected medical or family leave or with reduced output due to a disability. The company allegedly did not consider protected leave when assessing employees’ scores and did not conduct the necessary individualized reviews required by law. Consequently, individuals on protected leave were disproportionately chosen for layoffs among the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit, all of whom had taken protected leave or requested accommodations for disabilities.
Despite being informed of their impending layoffs, all 26 employees are still employed by Meta, with separations scheduled to commence on July 22. Many of the employees involved in the lawsuit took pregnancy or parental leave, resulting in decreased measured output during that time. Others took medical leave, with one employee disclosing a serious health condition and disability that was approved by Meta’s provider. However, as per the lawsuit, the employee was dissuaded from taking leave by a manager who indicated that doing so could lead to being selected for layoffs, and Meta allegedly did not provide accommodation for the disability.
Meta has responded to the claims by stating that they lack merit and are unfounded, emphasizing that decisions regarding workforce management and organization are made by individuals, not AI. The lawsuit asserts that the layoffs violated various 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’ attorneys have stated that the lawsuit seeks to maintain the status quo to retain the employees’ employment pending arbitration. This is crucial as once the separations are finalized, irreversible negative consequences may occur, such as loss of employer-subsidized health coverage during critical periods like pregnancy and postpartum recovery, forfeiture of unvested equity, and triggering immigration issues.