A group of 26 Meta employees has filed a federal lawsuit in Oakland, California, alleging the company deployed artificial intelligence systems to select staff for its May layoffs in a manner that systematically disadvantaged workers on medical, parental, or family leave. The complaint, lodged on 13 July, marks the first major US legal challenge to the use of AI in mass workforce reductions. The plaintiffs, who remain employed until their separations take effect on 22 July, are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the dismissals while their claims proceed through private arbitration.

According to the lawsuit, Meta relied on a suite of internal AI tools—including a large language model assistant called Metamate, keystroke and activity-monitoring software, and algorithmically assisted performance rankings—to score and rank employees. The plaintiffs argue that metrics such as productivity output, AI token usage, and calibration scores cannot be accumulated by workers on protected leave or those whose output is reduced by a disability. The complaint states that Meta did not pause the automated system for the individualised, leave-neutral review required by law, resulting in a disproportionate selection of employees who had taken leave for pregnancy, caregiving, or serious health conditions. One plaintiff alleges a manager warned that taking medical leave would lead to his inclusion in the anticipated layoffs.

Meta has denied the allegations, stating that “workforce management and organisational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.” The company, which is redirecting resources toward an ambitious AI infrastructure build-out costing up to $145 billion this year, described the claims as lacking merit. The case unfolds against a shifting legal backdrop: viewed from Washington, the Trump administration has moved to deprioritise “disparate impact” liability—a civil rights doctrine holding that facially neutral policies can be discriminatory if they disproportionately burden protected groups. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has dropped several discrimination cases in line with that policy. However, legal analysts in California note that state laws, including the California Family Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, explicitly prohibit automated decision-making systems that produce discriminatory effects, preserving a pathway for the plaintiffs regardless of federal enforcement trends.

The lawsuit invokes a range of federal and state protections, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. All 26 plaintiffs had taken or requested protected leave or disability accommodation within the 24 months preceding the layoffs. The case is being closely watched as a test of how existing anti-discrimination frameworks apply to algorithmic workforce management. A ruling on the requested injunction is expected before the 22 July separation date, and the outcome may influence how technology companies design and audit internal AI tools used in employment decisions.