- Published on
Lawsuit claims Meta's layoff decisions were made by AI, not humans
- Authors
- Name
- DeepHorus
A lawsuit filed by 26 former Meta employees alleges that the company used artificial intelligence systems to select workers for layoffs, specifically targeting those with disabilities or who had taken protected medical or family leave. The complaint, submitted yesterday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, claims Meta's internal AI tools, including a system called 'Metamate' and keystroke-monitoring data, scored and ranked employees without human managerial input. This marks the first legal challenge against a major US company for allegedly employing AI in conducting layoffs, according to Reuters.
Meta conducted layoffs affecting 8,000 employees in 2022 and 2023 as part of broader cost-cutting measures. The lawsuit contends that the termination list was not assembled through managers' judgment but through a 'constellation' of AI systems that evaluated employees on metrics such as AI tool usage, performance rankings, and productivity outputs. Employees were categorized as 'AI Native,' 'AI First,' or 'AI Enabled' based on their adoption of Meta's artificial intelligence tools, the filing states.
Key to the complaint is the allegation that these monitoring tools could not account for differences caused by disabilities or protected leaves. 'Those tools draw on inputs—performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics, ‘AI-native’ ratings, and AI-token consumption—that, 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 lawsuit said. This suggests that employees on leave were systematically disadvantaged in the AI-driven selection process.
The implications of the case could extend beyond Meta, raising questions about the legality of using AI in employment decisions, particularly under laws protecting workers with disabilities and those on family or medical leave. If successful, the lawsuit might prompt increased scrutiny of algorithmic management practices across the tech industry, where layoffs have been widespread. Experts note that the case underscores the need for transparency and human oversight in automated decision-making systems.
Meta has strongly denied the allegations, stating that people, not AI, made the layoff decisions. In a statement, the company said, 'These claims lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.' Meta declined further comment on the pending litigation. The plaintiffs, who filed anonymously as 'Doe' individuals, seek class-action status and unspecified damages.
Looking ahead, the court will need to examine the extent to which AI influenced Meta's layoff decisions and whether such practices violated employment discrimination laws. The case could set a precedent for how courts evaluate the use of advanced algorithms in corporate restructurings. As technology companies increasingly rely on AI for human resources functions, this lawsuit may catalyze regulatory efforts to ensure fair and accountable processes in workforce management.
