Meta is facing a new lawsuit from 26 anonymous employees who allege that the company used inherently discriminatory artificial intelligence systems to determine who would be laid off during a massive reduction in force in May 2026. The layoffs affected 8,000 workers, about 10% of Meta's global workforce, and were part of a cost-cutting move to redirect billions of dollars into AI development. The complaint, filed in the Northern District Court of California, claims that Meta relied on a suite of AI tools including an internal large language model called Metamate, algorithmic productivity scores tracking keystrokes and browser history, and AI-assisted performance review systems. These tools allegedly scored and ranked employees, and those who had taken protected leaves were disproportionately flagged for termination.
The lawsuit paints a picture of a system that failed to account for workers' legitimate absences. For example, one scientist was selected for layoff just two days before giving birth, and a manager on pregnancy-related disability leave was the only member of her team chosen. The plaintiffs argue that the AI's emphasis on metrics such as AI token consumption and keystroke counts inherently penalizes employees who miss work due to medical treatment, family leave, or disability accommodations. According to the filing, Meta was made aware of these flaws but did not pause the system for a neutral review. Instead, the company proceeded with the cuts, leading to the current legal challenge.
This is not the first time Meta has faced accusations of discriminatory layoffs. In February 2025, the company cut 5% of its workforce in a round that allegedly targeted older workers. That lawsuit, filed by a former employee, claimed that the company's lowest-performer rationale was a pretext for age discrimination. Several of the plaintiffs in the current suit also allege that they observed a pattern of employees on paternity leave being laid off in that earlier round. These repeated claims raise broader questions about how tech companies use AI in human resources decisions—a practice that has come under increasing scrutiny from regulators and civil rights groups.
How Meta's AI Systems Worked
According to the complaint, Meta deployed a constellation of internal AI systems to automate the layoff selection process. The centerpiece was Metamate, an internal large language model trained on employee communications, internal documents, and performance data. This "second brain" was used to generate productivity scores and rank employees based on their outputs. Additionally, the company used algorithmic tools that tracked keystrokes, browser history, and email patterns to evaluate engagement. Another system measured how much employees were consuming AI tokens—internal computational resources used for AI tools. The plaintiffs argue that these metrics are biased against workers who take approved leaves, because they naturally produce lower activity levels during those periods.
The lawsuit states that the system did not incorporate any logic to adjust for periods of protected leave. For instance, an employee on maternity leave would have zero keystrokes for weeks, yet the system would still score them as low performers compared to peers who were actively working. This creates a de facto discrimination against pregnant employees, those with disabilities, and those caring for family members. The plaintiffs argue that this violates California state law and federal anti-discrimination statutes under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Legal and Industry Ramifications
Legal experts note that this case could set important precedents for the use of AI in employment decisions. If the court finds that Meta's reliance on these systems constituted unlawful discrimination, it could force companies to reexamine their HR algorithms and incorporate more humane safeguards. The plaintiffs are asking for a temporary restraining order to stop the July 22 layoffs from being completed, allowing them to take their claims to private arbitration as required by their employment contracts. Meta disputes the allegations, with a spokesperson saying, "These claims lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI."
However, the complaint provides detailed examples and supporting evidence, including internal emails and system documentation. It describes how the AI tools were designed and implemented without adequate oversight. The case also highlights a growing tension in Silicon Valley: as companies pour billions into AI, they increasingly use these same technologies to manage their own workforce, often with little transparency. Other tech giants such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have faced similar criticisms over their use of AI in hiring, performance reviews, and termination decisions.
The timing of the lawsuit is significant. Meta recently announced plans to spend over $100 billion on AI infrastructure and research over the next few years, and the layoffs were seen as necessary to fund those investments. But the plaintiffs argue that cutting costs through AI-driven firings undermines worker rights and corporate responsibility. The court is expected to hear the motion for a temporary restraining order in the coming days.
This case comes amid a broader push for better regulation of AI in the workplace. Several states have introduced bills requiring companies to audit their AI systems for bias, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued guidelines warning that AI tools cannot be used to discriminate. The outcome of this lawsuit could accelerate those efforts or provide a cautionary tale for employers who outsource critical human decisions to algorithms.
As the July 22 deadline approaches, the laid-off workers face an uncertain future. Many have already been notified and are preparing to leave their jobs. The legal battle ahead will explore not just whether Meta broke the law, but whether the company's reliance on AI reflects a fundamental shift in how tech companies value their employees—and how they treat those who dare to take time off for health, family, or disability.
Source: Gizmodo News