A high-profile precedent is brewing in the industry: 26 former Meta employees have filed a class-action lawsuit, accusing the company of using artificial intelligence to unfairly select candidates for layoffs. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the algorithms disproportionately targeted workers on maternity, family, or medical leave, as well as those with disabilities. This is not just a technical glitch—it is a systemic problem that could impact the most vulnerable categories of staff.
The plaintiffs are part of the roughly 8,000 people Meta notified of layoffs as part of a reduction of about 10% of its workforce. Notifications were sent on May 20, with actual termination of employment scheduled for July 22. According to the plaintiffs, Meta did not rely on balanced managerial decisions but used a combination of internal AI tools for evaluation, ranking, and selection. These include the corporate assistant Metamate, trained "second brain" agents, data on AI token usage, automated performance ratings, and information on actions taken on corporate devices.
Leave as a Death Sentence: How Metrics Discriminate
According to the lawsuit, key metrics considered the volume of work completed, activity levels, number of code changes, and annual performance review results. Employees on medical, family, or maternity leave were physically unable to accumulate these indicators on par with their working colleagues. "Employees who used legally protected leave were disproportionately targeted for layoffs. The system effectively punished them for exercising their legal rights," the plaintiffs' attorneys stated. For example, one plaintiff—a scientist on approved leave before childbirth—received a layoff notice two days before giving birth. Another employee claims their performance rating was downgraded due to a break related to an injury.
Meta, for its part, denies the allegations. A company representative stated that "decisions regarding personnel management and organizational structure were and are made by people, not AI." However, the plaintiffs cite laws prohibiting discrimination against pregnant individuals, people with disabilities, and employees using family or medical leave. They also emphasize that Meta did not check its automated systems for bias.
Data Collection for AI: A Second Front
This lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg. In April 2026, Meta began installing a system called Model Capability Initiative on corporate devices, which could record keystrokes, mouse movements, screen content, and even audio. The company planned to use this data to train AI agents, but after widespread discontent (a petition was signed by over 1,600 employees), Mark Zuckerberg suspended the program in June. The plaintiffs claim the data could have been used not only for training but also for performance evaluation, contradicting official statements.
The employees are not seeking a class-action lawsuit—Meta's employment agreements require them to resolve claims individually through arbitration. In the initial phase, they are asking the court to temporarily halt the layoffs, preserve salaries, insurance, and leave status until the proceedings conclude. "Once the layoffs are completed, the consequences will become irreversible: employees will lose health insurance during pregnancy, postpartum recovery, and medical treatment," their attorneys warn.
My comment as an analyst: This case is a warning signal for the entire industry. Tech companies are increasingly using AI to optimize HR processes, but the transparency and ethics of such systems leave much to be desired. If the court finds Meta guilty, it will set a precedent that forces a rethinking of approaches to automating layoffs. AI is a tool, not a replacement for human judgment, especially when it comes to people's lives and rights.