Twenty-six Meta employees have filed a federal lawsuit alleging the tech giant used artificial intelligence systems to identify workers for mass layoffs — and that those systems disproportionately targeted employees who'd taken maternity leave, medical leave, or disability accommodation.
The suit, filed Monday in federal court in the northern district of California, centres on Meta's workforce reduction of about 8,000 employees earlier this year. Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
How the AI System Worked
The 71-page complaint alleges Meta deployed what it calls a "constellation of internal artificial intelligence systems" — including AI performance ratings and keystroke- and activity-monitoring data — to determine who'd be let go. "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work," the suit says. Instead, the 26 workers claim, the company used AI systems "to score, rank and select employees for inclusion on the list."
The lawsuit says Meta's AI tools gathered data on employees' performance rankings, productivity and other metrics. But those inputs don't exist when workers are on medical or family leave. For people with disabilities, those metrics might be reduced. "The result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves," the complaint says.
One plaintiff is a scientist who was on approved pre-birth pregnancy leave and was notified of her layoff just two days before she gave birth. Another is an engineer who said he received a "lowered rating" because of time he took off for an injury. A third, a manager on medical leave, said he was let go 16 days into his time off.
A Meta spokesperson disputed the allegations. "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts," he said in an email. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI."
The Monitoring Program
Meta introduced its AI employee-monitoring program earlier this year. It was designed to capture workers' keystrokes, mouse activity, browser history, along with messages, emails and location data on company devices. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's CEO, said the idea was to train the company's AI systems on its employees' behaviours. "The AI models learn from watching really smart people do things," Zuckerberg said in an internal meeting, according to the Information. "The average intelligence of the people who are at this company is significantly higher than the average set of people that you can get to do tasks."
The lawsuit says Meta quietly launched the monitoring program without employee buy-in. Meta told employees about it through a "low-visibility internal post – made by an engineer rather than a senior leader," the complaint says. "On at least some teams, employees received no consent or acknowledgment prompt at all, and, at least initially, there was no way to opt out."
Employee backlash quickly racked up over the last few months, prompting Zuckerberg to announce that he was pausing the program in June. His about-face came after more than 1,600 employees signed a petition saying the program violated their privacy.
What the Workers Are Asking For
The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary court ruling to stop Meta from finalizing the layoffs while they pursue their claims, along with relief that could include reinstatement, back pay, lost equity, benefits and other damages.
In Monday's suit, lawyers for the plaintiffs asked the court to immediately approve an independent audit into Meta's AI tools. They say it would provide clarification into why the 26 workers, who were on leave or approved for disability accommodation, were let go. "Meta deliberately kept the mechanics of its selection process secret from its employees," the lawyers said in an emailed statement.
The plaintiffs are still Meta employees until 22 July, when their termination is set to begin, according to the lawyers. Citing retaliation concerns, the attorneys are asking the judge to allow the plaintiffs to remain anonymous and for a court-order to preserve the workers' employment status while arbitration is pending.
"Once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible: employer-subsidized health coverage lost during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and active medical treatment; time-bound leave rights extinguished; unvested equity forfeited; and immigration consequences triggered," the lawyers said.
Why This Matters:
This case raises fundamental questions about the use of AI in workforce decisions — and whether algorithmic management can comply with labour protections that exist in law. If the allegations are proven, Meta's system would represent a failure not of technology but of corporate governance: a choice to automate decisions that require human judgment and legal accountability. The suit also highlights a broader tension in the tech sector between efficiency gains from AI and the risk that those systems encode biases or overlook protected categories. For European policymakers watching from across the Atlantic, this is a preview of the regulatory challenges ahead. The EU's AI Act, which comes into force in stages over the next two years, includes provisions on high-risk AI systems in employment. But enforcement will depend on whether regulators can access the black boxes that companies like Meta build — and whether courts will hold firms accountable when those systems produce discriminatory outcomes. The case is a test of whether existing labour law can adapt to algorithmic decision-making, or whether new frameworks are needed.