A group of 26 current and former Meta employees has sued the company in federal court in Oakland, California, alleging that Meta used artificial-intelligence systems to help decide who to lay off, and that the process disproportionately hurt workers on medical, parental or family leave. The claims are allegations that Meta denies and that a court has not tested. But they open a window on a question every large employer is now grappling with: how much of a firing decision can be handed to software.
What the lawsuit alleges
According to the complaint, filed late Monday, Meta drew on a set of internal tools to rank employees for its May layoffs. The suit says the company used AI systems, keystroke- and activity-monitoring data, "AI token-usage" dashboards and algorithmically assisted performance rankings to help determine who would be cut, as reported by the Associated Press. Named in the filing are a large-language-model assistant called "Metamate" and an employee-trained "second brain" that tracked workers' communications and documents, along with a productivity score drawn from scanning keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history.
The heart of the plaintiffs' argument is that those scores are structurally unfair to some workers. Many of the ratings, the suit says, by design "cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," according to the complaint quoted by the Associated Press. All 26 plaintiffs, the filing says, had taken, requested or been approved for such leave.
The layoff and what the plaintiffs want
The workers were among roughly 8,000 employees, about 10% of Meta's workforce, that the company said in May it would let go, per Quartz. Notified in May that their jobs would end starting July 22, the plaintiffs are asking the court for a preliminary ruling to block Meta from finishing the layoffs while they pursue their claims in private arbitration, the Associated Press reported. The suit invokes federal protections for workers with disabilities and those taking medical or family leave.
Meta's response
Meta rejects the account. A company spokesperson said the suit lacks merit and that "workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," according to reporting on the case. That distinction, between AI making a decision and AI informing one made by managers, is likely to be central if the case proceeds.
Why it matters beyond Meta
The dispute is a marker of a broader shift. Employers increasingly use algorithms to screen, rank and manage staff, and regulators have started to say that the results are the employer's responsibility. US anti-discrimination enforcers have signaled that "the algorithm did it" is not a defense: a company remains liable if an automated tool produces biased outcomes, even unintentionally. A separate, closely watched case against the HR-software maker Workday has been allowed to proceed on claims that its screening tools disadvantaged some applicants.
For companies, the practical lesson is that automating a layoff does not automate away the legal duties that come with it. For now, the Meta case is only a set of allegations. But whether courts treat AI-assisted layoffs as ordinary management or as a new source of discrimination risk is a question with implications well beyond one company, and Boursel will report the outcome rather than predict it.
