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

A group of 26 Meta employees has filed a federal lawsuit alleging the company used artificial intelligence systems to identify layoff targets in ways that disproportionately affected workers on medical, parental, or family leave.

The suit, filed in Oakland federal court, centers on Meta's decision to eliminate approximately 8,000 positions—roughly 10% of its workforce—beginning in May 2026. According to the complaint, Meta deployed internal AI systems, keystroke monitoring, activity tracking, AI token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance rankings to determine which employees would lose their jobs.

How algorithmic scoring allegedly discriminated

The lawsuit argues that these automated scoring mechanisms inherently disadvantage employees on protected leave. Performance metrics "by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability," the complaint states.

According to the filing, Meta failed to pause or adjust its algorithmic systems to account for protected absences, nor did it conduct the individualized, leave-neutral reviews required by law. The result: employees on medical or family leave were selected for termination at disproportionate rates.

All 26 plaintiffs, who remain anonymous in the filing, took protected leave and either requested or received disability accommodations. Their separations are scheduled to begin July 22. About half took leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons, including eight women who took maternity leave, four men who took parental leave, and one woman who took both family caregiving and bereavement leave.

One employee disclosed a serious health condition approved by Meta's own medical provider but was allegedly "discouraged and deterred" by a manager who warned that taking leave would result in selection for layoffs. The lawsuit claims Meta offered no accommodation for his disability.

Legal claims and the disparate impact question

The complaint invokes multiple federal and state protections, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Notably, the lawsuit relies on disparate impact liability—a civil rights doctrine holding that facially neutral policies can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden protected classes without job-related necessity. The Trump administration has moved to deprioritize disparate impact enforcement, arguing it undermines meritocracy. However, the lawsuit demonstrates that companies remain vulnerable to such claims, particularly when workers pursue cases independently or under state laws that explicitly prohibit disparate impact discrimination.

The plaintiffs' attorneys argue that Meta's "algorithmically assisted selection process, by systematically recording such absences as reduced performance, falls more heavily on women than on men," given that women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave.

Why it matters

This case represents one of the first major legal challenges to AI-driven workforce decisions that allegedly discriminate against employees exercising legally protected rights. As companies increasingly automate performance evaluation and layoff selection, the lawsuit raises critical questions about whether algorithmic systems can comply with employment law—particularly when those systems measure output without accounting for protected absences. The outcome could establish precedent for how companies must design and audit AI tools used in employment decisions.

Meta denied the allegations, stating that "workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI" and that the claims "lack merit and are not based on facts."

The plaintiffs seek to maintain their employment status pending arbitration, arguing that once separations are finalized, harms including loss of health coverage during pregnancy and medical treatment, forfeited equity, and immigration consequences become irreversible.

These details were first reported by CBS News and The Associated Press.