A group of 26 Meta employees has filed a federal lawsuit alleging the company relied on artificial intelligence (AI) tools to select workers for layoffs in a way that disproportionately affected those on medical, parental, or family leave. The suit was filed late Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland.
The plaintiffs are among approximately 8,000 workers, about 10% of Meta’s global workforce, whom the company announced it would lay off in May. According to the complaint, Meta used internal AI systems, including keystroke and activity monitoring data, AI token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance rankings to make layoff decisions. The lawsuit contends that these metrics inherently disadvantage employees on protected leave or with disabilities, as their productivity data naturally declines during such absences.
The employees argue that Meta failed to account for the impact of protected medical or family leave in its evaluation process and did not conduct individualized, leave-neutral reviews as required by law. As a result, those on medical or family leave were disproportionately selected for layoffs. All 26 plaintiffs have taken protected leave and requested or received accommodations for disabilities, yet each faces separation from the company, with layoffs scheduled to commence on July 22.
Several plaintiffs reportedly took pregnancy or parental leave, during which their output was reduced due to time away from work. One employee disclosed a serious health condition verified by Meta’s own provider but said he was discouraged from taking leave after a manager warned this could lead to his selection for layoffs. The lawsuit asserts that no accommodations were offered for his disability.
Meta responded by denying the allegations, stating that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts.” The company emphasized that workforce and organizational decisions were made by people, not AI, refuting suggestions that algorithms alone determined layoffs.
The suit highlights that about half of the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons, including eight women who had maternity or pregnancy leave, four men on parental leave, and one woman who took leave for family care and bereavement.
Legal claims in the suit invoke several federal and state statutes, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The complaint also raises issues of disparate impact liability, a legal doctrine under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This doctrine holds that employment policies that appear neutral can still be unlawful if they disproportionately affect protected classes and are not job-related or necessary.
Although the Trump administration sought to curtail enforcement of disparate impact claims—arguing they undermine merit-based employment decisions—the lawsuit demonstrates that workers can still pursue such claims independently, especially when federal agencies decline to intervene. Moreover, various states maintain laws that prohibit disparate impact discrimination, offering additional avenues for legal recourse in matters related to AI-driven employment practices.