Meta sued by employees claiming AI layoff tool discriminated
Twenty-six employees have sued Meta, alleging its AI systems unfairly targeted workers on protected leave during a recent 10% workforce reduction, exposing a growing legal risk for tech companies integrating automated tools into HR decisions.
Twenty-six unnamed current and former Meta employees filed a lawsuit Monday in a California federal court. They allege the company used artificial intelligence to discriminate against them during a May layoff round that cut 10% of Meta's workforce.
The legal complaint targets how Meta measures productivity. Plaintiffs claim the company relied on a system of internal AI tools that tracked metrics like performance ratings, calibration scores, "AI-native" ratings, and AI-token consumption. Workers on protected medical or family leave, or those with disabilities, cannot accumulate these metrics by design.
"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, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote. The lawsuit alleges this violated laws protecting employees with disabilities and those on pregnancy or family leave.
Meta has denied the allegations. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," a company spokesperson said. "The claims lack merit and are not based on facts."
The plaintiffs are asking the court for a preliminary injunction to maintain their employment status. They want an independent audit of the algorithmic selection process before their claims are resolved in individual arbitration.
The case highlights a mounting legal vulnerability for corporations deploying AI in human resources. For investors and executives, the use of specific metrics like AI-token consumption as a proxy for productivity presents a tangible compliance risk. If algorithms inadvertently penalize legally protected absences, companies face significant litigation costs and regulatory scrutiny.
This litigation follows a recent federal ruling in California involving Workday. A judge ruled the enterprise software firm must face claims that its AI-powered job screening services violated state and federal discrimination laws.
Workday denied the allegations, stating its technology evaluates job qualifications rather than protected traits. Together, the Meta and Workday cases signal that automated workforce management tools are facing rigorous legal testing, demanding closer scrutiny from corporate boards.
