A coalition of 26 former and current Meta employees has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company’s internal artificial intelligence systems discriminated against workers during a major layoff round. The plaintiffs claim the AI-driven selection process failed to account for protected medical or family leave, effectively penalizing employees for their absence.
Allegations of Algorithmic Bias in Meta Layoffs
The legal complaint centers on the 10% workforce reduction that occurred at Meta in May. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the company’s internal “constellation” of AI tools relied on metrics that inherently disadvantaged those on leave. According to the filing, these inputs include performance ratings, calibration scores, and “AI-token consumption.”
The lawsuit contends that because these metrics require active participation and output, they cannot be accumulated by employees who are away from work due to disability or protected leave. By using these data points to determine job cuts, the plaintiffs allege that Meta’s system functioned as a proxy for targeting protected groups. This legal challenge highlights a growing tension between corporate efficiency tools and labor protections.
Did you know?
The lawsuit specifically identifies “AI-token consumption” as a controversial metric. The plaintiffs argue that because this serves as a measurement for general AI usage, it naturally excludes employees who were not physically present to interact with company systems.
Meta and Workday Respond to Discrimination Claims
Meta has denied the allegations. A spokesperson for the company stated via email that the claims “lack merit and are not based on facts.” The company maintains that its organizational decisions remain human-led, asserting that “workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.”
In response to such criticisms, Workday has stated that its technology evaluates only job qualifications rather than protected traits like race, age, or disability, noting that it conducts rigorous testing through a “Responsible AI” program.
The Future of AI in Workforce Management
The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to maintain their employment status while an independent audit of the selection process is conducted.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What are the plaintiffs asking for in the Meta lawsuit?
The group is seeking a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo of their employment while an independent audit of the AI-assisted selection process is performed. - How does Meta respond to the claims?
Meta states that the lawsuit lacks merit and emphasizes that its workforce decisions are made by people, not artificial intelligence. - Why are the plaintiffs targeting “AI-token consumption”?
The lawsuit argues that this metric serves as a proxy for general AI usage, which inadvertently punishes employees who were on protected leave and therefore unable to accumulate such data.
Pro Tip:
Follow the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California docket for updates on the discovery phase of this litigation, as it may reveal technical details about how large-scale corporate AI systems weigh employee performance data.
Have you encountered AI-driven tools in your own performance reviews? Join the conversation in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing updates on technology and labor law.
