Twenty-six Meta employees have filed a lawsuit against the company, asserting that its artificial intelligence systems used to select workers for layoffs disproportionately targeted individuals on medical, parental, or family leave. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Oakland, California, claims that Meta utilized internal AI systems, activity monitoring data, and algorithmically assisted performance rankings to determine which of the approximately 8,000 laid-off employees would be affected.
The plaintiffs contend that the AI systems' scoring mechanisms, by design, could not be accumulated by employees on protected leave or those with reduced output due to disability. The suit alleges that Meta failed to account for protected leave in its employee scoring and did not conduct individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral reviews as required by law. This, they argue, resulted in a higher selection rate for layoffs among employees on protected leave.
Each of the 26 anonymous plaintiffs had taken protected leave and sought or received accommodations for disabilities. While notified of their impending layoffs, which are scheduled to begin July 22, all remain employed by Meta. Many of these employees had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons, including eight women on maternity or pregnancy leave and four men on parental leave. Another plaintiff had taken leave to care for a family member and for bereavement.
One individual disclosed a serious health condition and disability, which Meta's own provider approved. However, the lawsuit states a manager discouraged him from taking leave, warning it would result in his selection for layoffs, and Meta offered no accommodation for his disability.
Meta has responded to the lawsuit, stating that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts." The company asserted that "workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI."
The lawsuit asserts that Meta's layoff process violated federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It also references "disparate impact liability," a civil rights concept holding that policies neutral on their face can be discriminatory if they disproportionately harm a protected class and are not job-related. While the Trump administration had moved to deprioritize enforcement of disparate impact claims, the lawsuit argues that companies remain vulnerable to such litigation, particularly in the age of AI, and that workers can still pursue these cases independently.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that Meta's AI selection process systematically recorded absences as reduced performance, which has a disparate impact on women, who disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave. The suit cites Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment practices with a disparate impact.
The plaintiffs' legal team is seeking to preserve the status quo and keep the workers employed pending arbitration. They argue that finalizing separations would cause irreversible harm, including the loss of employer-subsidized health coverage during recovery periods, the extinguishing of leave rights, forfeiture of unvested equity, and potential immigration consequences.