Meta Faces Lawsuit Alleging AI Tools Discriminated Against Workers on Protected Leave in Mass Layoffs

SAN FRANCISCO — Dozens of Meta employees have filed a federal lawsuit accusing the social media giant of using artificial intelligence systems to select workers for layoffs in a way that disproportionately targeted those who took maternity, medical or disability leave.

The 71-page complaint, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, was brought by 26 current and former employees who claim the company’s AI-driven performance evaluations penalized them for exercising legally protected rights to time off. The workers are among approximately 8,000 employees, or about 10% of Meta’s global workforce, notified of layoffs beginning in May.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has disputed the allegations. “These claims lack merit and are not based on facts,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. “Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.”

The lawsuit alleges that Meta relied on a “constellation of internal artificial intelligence systems” — including AI performance ratings, keystroke and activity monitoring, productivity metrics and AI token-usage dashboards — to score, rank and select employees for termination. These tools, according to the complaint, failed to account for periods when employees were on approved leave, effectively punishing them for absences required by law.

“Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work,” the complaint states. “Instead, the company used AI systems to score, rank and select employees for inclusion on the list.”

Plaintiffs include a scientist notified of her layoff just days before giving birth while on approved pre-birth pregnancy leave, an engineer who received a lowered rating due to time off for an injury, and a manager let go 16 days into medical leave. All 26 plaintiffs, who are proceeding anonymously as Does 1-26, had taken protected leave in the 24 months prior to the layoffs, the suit says.

Eight of the plaintiffs are women who took maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four are men who took parental leave, and another took leave to care for a family member followed by bereavement leave, according to the filing. The suit claims the practices violate the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and various state laws.

The case highlights growing concerns about the use of AI in workplace decisions. Regulators and lawmakers in states including California, Colorado and Illinois have enacted rules in recent years to address potential bias in automated employment tools. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also stated that existing anti-discrimination laws apply when employers use AI for such purposes.

Meta announced the latest round of job cuts in April as part of efforts to improve efficiency and redirect resources toward artificial intelligence development. Employees received notices starting around May 20, with departures scheduled through July 22. The company also reassigned thousands of other workers to AI-related initiatives during the restructuring.

The lawsuit points to Meta’s employee-monitoring program, introduced earlier this year, which captured keystrokes, mouse movements, browser history, messages, emails and location data on company devices. The program was intended to train the company’s AI systems on employee behaviors, according to internal statements attributed to CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

In an internal meeting reported by The Information, Zuckerberg said the AI models would “learn from watching really smart people do things,” noting that the average intelligence at the company was higher than what could be obtained externally for certain tasks.

Plaintiffs allege the monitoring program was rolled out with limited notice and little opportunity for opt-out, contributing to an environment where data collection fed into layoff decisions without proper safeguards for protected leave.

The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to halt the finalization of layoffs for the plaintiffs, along with reinstatement, back pay, lost equity, benefits and other damages. Because of Meta’s arbitration agreements, the plaintiffs are not seeking class-action status but are pursuing individual claims.

Legal experts following the case say it could test how courts view the intersection of AI tools and employment protections. If the metrics used in decision-making inherently disadvantage workers on leave, companies may need to implement more robust adjustments or human oversight to comply with federal and state laws.

The controversy unfolds amid broader tensions at Meta over its aggressive push into AI. Employees have expressed concerns about surveillance tools, reassignments to data-labeling roles described internally by some as “draftees” work, and the overall pace of change. Petitions and internal protests have highlighted worries that AI initiatives are coming at the expense of worker well-being.

Meta has defended its approach as necessary for remaining competitive in the rapidly evolving technology landscape. In communications to staff, executives have emphasized flattening organizational structures, increasing ownership on smaller teams and leveraging AI to boost productivity.

The company has paused aspects of its monitoring program at times due to internal data concerns and employee feedback, but continues to integrate AI deeply into operations.

This latest lawsuit adds to a series of legal challenges facing big tech companies over AI deployment. As tools become more sophisticated, questions about transparency, bias detection and accountability are likely to intensify.

For the plaintiffs, the stakes are personal. One researcher reportedly received her first “Meets Most” performance rating shortly after disclosing a disability and requesting accommodations, according to details in the complaint. Others describe lowered scores directly tied to leave periods.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland. Plaintiffs are seeking preservation of relevant data, models and logs, as well as an independent audit of the algorithmic selection process.

Meta’s spokesperson reiterated that decisions involved human judgment and that the company complies with all applicable employment laws.

As the tech industry grapples with balancing innovation and worker rights, the outcome of this suit could influence how other companies approach AI-assisted workforce management. With AI adoption accelerating, similar disputes may become more common.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys from firms specializing in employment law argue that failing to adjust for protected leave in automated systems amounts to built-in discrimination. They call for greater scrutiny of “black box” AI tools in high-stakes employment decisions.

Industry observers note that while AI can streamline processes, it requires careful calibration to avoid unintended biases, particularly around sensitive areas like health and family responsibilities.

Meta, with a workforce of around 78,000 at the end of the first quarter, has conducted multiple rounds of layoffs in recent years as it pivots toward AI. Previous cuts in 2022 and 2023 were larger in scale, but the 2026 reductions come as the company invests heavily in computing infrastructure and model development.

Zuckerberg has publicly stated that AI will transform many aspects of work, including at Meta itself. The company’s internal AI efforts include tools like Metamate, described as a large language model assistant, and “second brain” systems trained on employee data.

Critics within the company have raised alarms about the potential for these systems to create feedback loops that favor constant availability and high-volume output, metrics difficult to maintain during legitimate absences.

The lawsuit does not seek class certification due to arbitration clauses but requests the court issue a preliminary ruling preserving the status quo for the named plaintiffs while their claims proceed.

Broader implications could extend to other employers using similar technologies. Employment lawyers advise companies to audit AI tools for disparate impact on protected groups and to maintain clear documentation of human involvement in final decisions.

As of mid-2026, the debate over AI in human resources continues to evolve, with calls for federal guidelines gaining traction alongside state-level regulations.

The case underscores the challenges of integrating powerful new technologies into traditional employment frameworks. For Meta and its workforce, the resolution may help define the boundaries of acceptable AI use in one of the most consequential areas of business operations: deciding who stays and who goes.