Meta Faces Lawsuit Over AI-Driven Layoffs of Workers on Leave

Meta is defending itself against allegations that it used AI-powered tools to systematically target employees on medical leave or with disabilities during recent layoffs, a claim the company firmly denies.

According to a lawsuit filed in July 2026, Meta allegedly deployed AI-assisted software to identify and lay off workers who had taken time off for medical conditions or to care for family members. The company has pushed back hard against these accusations. "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts," a Meta representative stated. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI."

Why it matters

This case represents a critical test of how companies can legally use AI in workforce decisions. As more organizations adopt algorithmic tools for HR functions, the outcome could establish precedents for when AI-assisted layoffs cross the line into discrimination—particularly when they disproportionately affect protected classes under employment law.

Legal experts see merit in the claims

Despite Meta's denials, employment law specialists believe the former employees may have a viable case. California-based workplace trauma lawyer Michele Simon noted that while proving individual targeting is difficult in mass layoffs, "if it's true that Meta used unfair criteria that resulted in disproportionate selection of folks on leave or disabled, that could be a viable case." She emphasized that outcomes will likely depend on state employment laws, with California and New York—where the affected employees are located—both having strong worker protections.

Justin O'Keith Higgs, a senior labor and employment counsel, expressed even stronger skepticism about Meta's position. "I actually do feel they have a legitimate claim," he said. Higgs explained that large tech companies often operate with more chaos than their polished exteriors suggest. "Many times leadership will make very rash decisions and tell their teams they have a very small timeline to get the goal accomplished. When this happens, many checks we conduct can get missed."

The risks of algorithmic decision-making

Higgs outlined standard practice for responsible reductions in force: HR should specifically flag employees on leave or with accommodations to ensure selection metrics are fair. "The only time I would truly be comfortable with affecting people on leave would be where we are doing an across-the-board elimination of roles," he said, such as closing an entire department where no one is singled out.

Both legal experts cautioned against over-reliance on AI for critical workplace decisions. "AI is still very young in our spaces and we have not fully unlocked its full potential," Higgs noted. "You still need to be able to do the job correctly. These decisions should be tied to people, not the artificial intelligence tool."

Simon advised companies to avoid using AI-assisted tools for layoff decisions altogether, calling for more compassionate and thoughtful approaches generally.

The fundamental problem, experts agree, is that AI systems inherit the biases embedded in their training data and design. While AI adoption in HR appears inevitable, especially at large organizations, its tendency toward errors and inequitable outcomes means human oversight remains essential. Companies must implement robust safeguards to prevent discriminatory patterns from emerging in algorithmic decisions.

This lawsuit comes as Meta faces mounting legal challenges, including an $18 billion settlement over claims its social media platforms harmed children and teens. The details of the AI-assisted layoff allegations were first reported by Forbes contributor Janice Gassam Asare.