A group of 26 former and current Meta employees has filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company used artificial intelligence systems to discriminatorily select candidates for layoffs. The plaintiffs, who are proceeding anonymously due to fears of retaliation, claim that the algorithms disproportionately targeted workers on maternity, family, or medical leave, as well as those with special working conditions due to disabilities.
The lawsuit was filed on July 13. Employees received layoff notices on May 20, with actual termination of employment for most scheduled for July 22. In total, Meta plans to cut about 10% of its workforce, approximately 8,000 people.
How AI "Evaluated" Employees
According to the plaintiffs, Meta used a combination of internal AI-based tools to assess, rank, and select personnel. These include the corporate assistant Metamate, "second brain" agents trained by employees, data on AI token usage, automated performance ratings, and information on employee actions on corporate devices. The key issue, according to the plaintiffs, is that these metrics accounted for the volume of work completed, activity, number of code changes, and annual review results, but were not adjusted for legally protected periods of absence.
"Employees who used legally protected leave were disproportionately targeted for layoffs. The system effectively punished them for exercising their legal rights," the lawsuit authors stated. As an example, they cited the case of a scientist who received a layoff notice two days before giving birth, and a manager who was placed on the list on the 16th day of medical leave.
Meta's Position and the Essence of the Claims
A Meta representative called the allegations unfounded, stating that "decisions regarding personnel management and organizational structure were and are made by people, not AI." However, the plaintiffs insist that the company did not check the automated systems for bias and did not conduct an individual review of the results, which, in their view, violates laws prohibiting discrimination against pregnant women, people with disabilities, and employees using family or medical leave.
In the initial phase, the plaintiffs are seeking to temporarily halt the layoffs, preserve salaries, health insurance, stock rights, and leave status until the proceedings conclude. They are also demanding an independent audit of the AI tools used by the company. Lawyers emphasize that once the layoffs are completed, the consequences will become irreversible: employees will lose health insurance during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and treatment, and, in some cases, their immigration status.
Context: Data Collection and the Growing Role of AI
This lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg. In April 2026, Meta launched the Model Capability Initiative program, which recorded employees' keystrokes, mouse movements, screen content, and browser history to train AI agents. Following widespread discontent (a petition was signed by over 1,600 people), Mark Zuckerberg suspended the program in June. The plaintiffs claim that data from this program may also have been used in the layoffs, despite the company's assurances to the contrary.
This case is a stark example of how technologies intended to increase efficiency can backfire against the workers themselves. My assessment: This precedent could serve as a serious warning for the entire industry. If the court finds the use of AI for making personnel decisions without proper oversight and consideration of workers' rights to be discriminatory, it will force many companies to reconsider their algorithms and approaches to automating HR processes. Otherwise, we risk creating a "digital ceiling" for vulnerable categories of employees, which contradicts not only ethics but also the law.