Meta Employees File Lawsuit Over Layoff Practices
A group of 26 employees from Meta has filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that it used artificial intelligence systems to determine layoffs, which unfairly affected those on medical, parental, or family leave.
This group is among the 8,000 employees that Meta announced would be laid off in May, accounting for roughly 10% of its workforce. The lawsuit, lodged in federal court in Oakland, California, claims that Meta employed various internal AI systems, along with monitoring data and performance rankings, to decide who would be let go.
The lawsuit argues that the scoring system used by the company inherently disadvantages employees on protected leave. These internal metrics, as claimed in the lawsuit, don’t take into account those who may be on medical or family leave, leading to a disproportionate impact on these workers. The 26 employees involved, although notified of their layoff, are still employed and face separations starting July 22.
Focus on Employees on Parental Leave
Many of the individuals in this lawsuit had taken leave for maternity or parental reasons, during which their productivity metrics would naturally decrease. One plaintiff mentioned having a serious health condition approved by Meta’s provider but felt pressured by management against taking leave due to fears of being laid off. The lawsuit indicates that no accommodations were provided for his disability.
In response, Meta stated that the allegations are baseless and emphasize that workforce decisions were made by humans, not AI.
Notably, around half of the plaintiffs were on leave related to caregiving or pregnancy. The cohort includes eight women on maternity leave, four men on parental leave, and one woman who took leave to care for a family member, followed by bereavement leave.
The lawsuit claims that the layoffs infringe on multiple state and federal laws, including those related to family and medical leave, disabilities, and protections for pregnant workers.
Disparate Impact Argument Cited
The complaint references “disparate impact liability,” which highlights that seemingly neutral policies can still be discriminatory if they affect a protected group more negatively. This concept faced challenges during the Trump administration, which sought to minimize its enforcement, arguing it undermined merit-based evaluations.
Nonetheless, this lawsuit against Meta illustrates that companies are still open to disparate impact claims, despite these regulatory changes. Individuals can still pursue legal action independently if their complaints are dismissed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and several state laws explicitly prohibit such discrimination.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys noted that the AI-driven selection process disproportionately affects women, as they are more likely to take medical and caregiving leave. They invoked Title VII, which forbids employment practices causing disparate impact, including a significant Supreme Court ruling on the matter from 1971.
The lawyers emphasized that the lawsuit’s main goal is to maintain the current employment status of the affected workers until arbitration is resolved. They expressed concern that irreversible damages could occur if layoffs proceed, including loss of health coverage during critical periods, extinguished leave rights, forfeited equity, and triggering immigration issues.
