Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Use of AI in Layoffs

A group of 26 former employees has filed a lawsuit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, over the way it handled recent job cuts. The lawsuit, filed in a United States court in California, claims that the company used artificial intelligence (AI) tools to select workers for termination. This legal action is notable because it is one of the first times a major American company has been challenged in court for using AI to manage layoffs.

According to Ars Technica, the layoffs took place in May as part of a larger plan by Meta to reduce its total staff by 10 percent, which affected approximately 8,000 workers. The former employees, who are referred to as “Doe” plaintiffs in the court documents, argue that the company did not rely on the personal judgment of managers who knew the employees’ work. Instead, they claim that Meta used a complex system of internal AI tools to score and rank staff members.

The lawsuit describes a variety of systems used by the company, including an internal assistant called “Metamate” and other AI agents trained by employees. The complaint states that Meta monitored workers through various digital methods, such as tracking how often they used AI tools and measuring their daily activity. According to The Verge, the company even used internal dashboards to label employees based on how much they used these new technologies, with categories such as “AI Native,” “AI First,” and “AI Enabled.”

The core of the legal complaint is that these AI tools were biased against certain groups of people. The former employees argue that the scoring systems failed to account for workers who were on protected medical or family leave. In the United States, employees have a legal right to take time off for specific health or family reasons without losing their jobs. The lawsuit claims that because these workers were not actively using the company’s AI tools or producing data during their time away, the AI systems gave them lower scores. As a result, these employees were more likely to be chosen for the layoff list.

“Those tools draw on inputs—performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics, ‘AI-native’ ratings, and AI-token consumption—that, by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave,” the lawsuit explained. The plaintiffs argue that this process effectively punished employees for exercising their legal rights to take time off. By using these metrics, the lawsuit claims that Meta violated both federal and state laws that protect workers from being fired for taking such leave.

Meta has strongly denied these allegations. In a statement provided to both Ars Technica and The Verge, a company spokesperson named Tracy Clayton said that the claims are not based on facts and lack merit. The company insists that its decisions regarding staff were made by human managers, not by automated computer programs. “Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI,” the company stated.

This case highlights a growing concern about the role of technology in the modern workplace. As companies increasingly use data and algorithms—sets of rules that computers follow to solve problems—to manage performance and make hiring or firing decisions, questions about fairness and transparency are becoming more common. If the court finds that Meta’s tools were indeed biased, it could set a major legal precedent for how other large companies use AI in the future.

For now, the legal battle is just beginning. The 26 former employees are seeking to prove that the reliance on these digital tools led to unfair treatment. Meanwhile, Meta maintains that its processes were fair and managed by human leaders. As the case moves forward, it will likely draw more attention to the risks of using automated systems to make life-changing decisions for employees. Many experts are watching this situation closely to see how the legal system will balance the use of new technology with the protection of workers' rights.