A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company in federal court in Oakland, California, alleging that its internal AI systems were used to disproportionately select workers on medical, parental, and family leave for layoffs — in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other federal protections.
The lawsuit, filed late Monday, paints a detailed picture of how Meta used a combination of AI-powered tools — including keystroke and activity-monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance rankings — to determine which employees would be cut as part of the 8,000-person reduction announced in April.
How the System Worked
According to the complaint, the performance scores and metrics Meta relied on were "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 lawsuit alleges Meta did not account for protected leave when computing these scores and "did not pause the system for the individualized, leave- and accommodation-neutral review that the law requires."
As a result, people who had taken pregnancy leave, parental leave, or medical leave were disproportionately flagged by the algorithmic system. Many of them only learned they had been selected for termination when the company's automated systems notified them.
Who the Plaintiffs Are
The 26 anonymous plaintiffs represent a cross-section of leave-takers:
- 8 women who took maternity or pregnancy-related leave - 4 men who took parental leave - 1 woman who took leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave - Others who took medical leave for serious health conditions
One plaintiff disclosed a "serious health condition and disability" that was approved by Meta's own healthcare provider — but was allegedly "discouraged and deterred from taking that leave by a manager" who warned that doing so would result in selection for layoffs.
All 26 remain technically employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.
Meta's Response
Meta denied the allegations. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," the company said in a statement. It called the claims "without merit" and vowed to defend against them.
The statement notably did not deny that AI tools were used to inform or assist the decision-making process — only that decisions were ultimately "made by people."
Legal Significance
The lawsuit comes at a pivotal moment for the doctrine of "disparate impact" — the principle that facially neutral policies can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden protected groups, even without intentional bias. The Trump administration has ordered federal agencies to deprioritize disparate impact enforcement, arguing it undermines meritocracy.
But the lawsuit underscores that despite the administration's posture, companies remain vulnerable to disparate impact litigation brought by private plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and similar state laws.
The plaintiffs' lawyers framed the case narrowly: they are seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo and keep the 26 employees working while the case moves to arbitration. "Once these separations are final, the harms are irreversible," they wrote — citing lost health coverage during pregnancy and medical treatment, forfeited equity, extinguished leave rights, and potential immigration consequences.
Broader Implications
This case is a landmark test of how algorithmic management intersects with employment discrimination law. If the plaintiffs succeed, it could force employers across the tech industry to audit their AI-driven HR systems for disparate impact — and to build accommodations for leave-takers directly into their scoring models.
It also highlights a growing tension: companies are turning to AI to make workforce decisions faster and more "objectively," but the metrics these systems optimize for often fail to account for the real-world circumstances — like medical leave — that the law has long recognized as protected.
With separations scheduled to begin in just five days, the court will need to act quickly on the plaintiffs' request for emergency relief.
