Meta sued over AI-assisted layoff decisions

Twenty-six current and former Meta employees have brought a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of California challenging how the company selected workers for a May round of layoffs. Filed in Oakland, the complaint contends that internal AI‑assisted systems played a central role in scoring, ranking and choosing employees for termination.

The plaintiffs state that they were notified in May that their jobs were being eliminated, with separations scheduled to begin on July 22, 2026. They are asking the court for a preliminary injunction to block those terminations while their legal claims proceed, and to preserve their employment status during that period.

At the core of the lawsuit is an allegation that Meta relied on a set of internal tools and data points that, by design, could not be accumulated while employees were on protected leave. The complaint cites performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics, “AI‑native” ratings and AI‑token consumption as key inputs into layoff scoring.

The filing describes a constellation of internal systems, including Metamate, employee‑trained “second‑brain” agents, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI‑token‑usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration. Plaintiffs say internal dashboards also tracked the adoption of these AI tools.

All 26 plaintiffs state that they took, requested or were approved for protected medical or family leave within the past 24 months. They argue that because metrics tied to ongoing work and AI‑tool usage could not be earned while they were on leave, and were not adjusted for absences, leave‑takers were disproportionately placed on the termination list.

The lawsuit asserts violations of multiple federal statutes, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It also alleges failures to comply with recently adopted state and local rules that require bias testing of automated employment decision tools, referencing updates to California law and measures in New York City.

Beyond blocking the planned separations, the plaintiffs seek an independent audit of Meta’s layoff‑selection process. They are asking for a recalculation of layoff decisions that excludes the alleged effects of protected leave and disability accommodations from the metrics used to score employees.

Meta has publicly rejected the allegations, stating that the claims “lack merit and are not based on facts.” The company maintains that workforce management and organizational decisions “were and are made by people, not AI,” disputing the characterization of its internal tools.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge William Orrick in the Northern District of California. The coming proceedings will address both the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and the broader questions raised about the role of AI‑assisted tools in large‑scale employment decisions.