Employees past and present file a lawsuit against Meta, claiming discrimination in AI-driven layoffs.

Employees past and present file a lawsuit against Meta, claiming discrimination in AI-driven layoffs.
Summary
A coalition of Meta employees sued for alleged discriminatory layoffs using AI.
Lawsuit claims violations of protected-leave laws related to pregnancy and disabilities.
Plaintiffs argue AI systems didn't consider approved absences when determining layoffs.

Share

Bookmark

Newsletter

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, was recently spotted at the U.S. Capitol following a meeting with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on March 26, 2026.

In a significant legal development, a group of current and former employees from Meta has initiated a lawsuit against the tech company, claiming that the implementation of artificial intelligence during its recent layoffs was executed in a discriminatory manner.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday, contends that Meta violated several laws protecting employee rights related to pregnancy and disability, among other protections, and the plaintiffs have expressed their intention to resolve their claims individually through arbitration.

Representatives for the 26 anonymous workers have submitted their legal grievance to the United States Northern District Court of California, noting that these individuals were part of the 10% reduction in Meta's workforce that occurred during the layoffs in May.

The plaintiffs argue that Meta's internal artificial intelligence systems failed to consider approved leave when making decisions on which employees to terminate. The legal filing states, "These tools rely on inputs such as performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity metrics, AI-native ratings, and AI-token consumption, which inherently disadvantage employees who are on protected medical or family leave or whose work output is affected by a disability."

The lawsuit further claims that Meta's reliance on certain performance metrics, including token consumption—which serves as a measure of general AI engagement—was used in a manner that disproportionately impacted specific employees. Courthouse News Service previously reported on this case.

Loading comments...