Twenty-six anonymous Meta employees have filed a lawsuit against the tech giant, accusing it of using inherently discriminatory artificial intelligence systems to select workers for a massive round of layoffs. The layoffs, announced in May, affected 8,000 employees—about 10% of Meta's workforce. The company has stated these cuts were necessary to offset the hundreds of billions of dollars it plans to invest in AI development.
According to the complaint filed in the Northern District Court of California, Meta did not rely on human managers to decide who would be fired. Instead, it used a constellation of internal AI systems to score, rank, and select employees. These systems included Metamate, an internal large language model assistant trained on employee communications and documents; algorithmic productivity scores based on keystroke logging, browser history, and email data; AI-assisted performance review tools; and internal records of AI token consumption.
The lawsuit claims that these AI systems penalized employees who took protected leave, such as disability leave or parental leave. For instance, the productivity metrics relied on continuous keyboard activity and AI token usage, which naturally drop when an employee is absent or working reduced hours due to medical reasons or family responsibilities. The plaintiffs argue that Meta was made aware of this problem but failed to pause the system for a more neutral review process.
“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 lawsuit states. Examples include a scientist who was two days away from giving birth and a manager on approved pregnancy-related disability leave who became the only person on her team targeted by the system.
Meta denies the allegations. A spokesperson told Gizmodo: “These claims lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.” However, the plaintiffs contend that the AI systems were used to generate termination lists, and human managers merely rubber-stamped them.
The lawsuit highlights broader concerns about the use of AI in human resources decisions. Critics argue that algorithmic systems often replicate or amplify existing biases, especially when trained on historical data that reflects past discrimination. In Meta's case, the emphasis on keystrokes and token consumption may reflect a bias against employees with disabilities or those who take family leave, as their activity logs would naturally show lower numbers during their absence.
This is not the first time Meta has faced a discrimination lawsuit over layoffs. In February 2025, a former employee sued the company, claiming older workers were disproportionately targeted in a round that affected 5% of the workforce. Meta denied those allegations as well, stating the layoffs were based on performance. However, one of the engineers in the current lawsuit also alleges that employees who took paternity leave had been laid off in that earlier round.
The plaintiffs are now asking the court to block Meta from completing the layoffs on July 22, giving them time to pursue claims in private arbitration—as required by their employment contracts. They argue that the court can grant temporary relief before arbitration begins, because the harm of being laid off is immediate and irreparable. The workers say Meta’s agreements require employees to arbitrate workplace disputes individually, but that clause does not apply to requests for temporary relief.
The case raises important questions about the legal and ethical boundaries of using AI in employment decisions. Employers increasingly turn to automated tools to cut costs and improve efficiency, but these tools can inadvertently violate anti-discrimination laws if they rely on metrics that correlate with protected characteristics. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidelines warning companies to audit their AI systems for bias, but enforcement remains limited.
Meta's own AI systems have been under scrutiny for other issues. The company recently launched Metamate as an internal assistant to help employees with tasks like scheduling and information retrieval. However, the lawsuit suggests that the same AI was repurposed to evaluate employee performance based on its analysis of internal communications. Critics point out that an LLM trained on internal data may not be designed to make fair or consistent employment decisions, especially when it lacks context about an employee's leave status or personal circumstances.
The plaintiffs also note that the layoffs themselves were part of Meta's broader cost-cutting strategy. The company has spent heavily on AI infrastructure, including data centers and chips, while reducing its workforce by thousands. In a memo to employees earlier this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company would focus on efficiency and eliminate low-performing roles. However, the lawsuit alleges that the definition of low-performing was shaped by biased AI, not by actual job performance.
Legal experts say the case could set a precedent for how courts evaluate AI-driven employment decisions. If the plaintiffs succeed, it may force companies to disclose how their algorithms work and to prove they do not discriminate. On the other hand, Meta's defense that humans make the final decision may shield it from liability, even if AI was used to generate the shortlist. The outcome will likely depend on whether the court finds that Meta's use of AI was a substantial factor in the layoff decisions.
Meanwhile, the affected employees are left in limbo. Many have already received termination notices and are scrambling to find new jobs. The July 22 deadline looms, and they hope the court will grant a temporary restraining order. Meta has declined to comment further on the pending litigation, but the company continues to maintain that its workforce management decisions are made by people, not machines.
The lawsuit adds to growing concerns about the role of AI in the workplace. As companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon deploy AI tools for hiring, promotion, and firing, workers' rights advocates are calling for stronger regulations. Some propose requiring employers to conduct bias audits before using AI for employment decisions and to provide transparency reports. Until then, employees like those in this case must rely on the courts to hold companies accountable.
Source: Gizmodo News