The unnamed workers submitted their suit on Monday to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They claim Meta violated laws protecting leave for medical conditions, pregnancy, and disabilities, among others, and they intend to pursue individual claims through arbitration.
These employees were part of the 10% of Meta's workforce let go in the company's May reduction. Their lawyers argued that Meta's range of internal AI programs failed to account for approved time off when selecting employees for layoffs. The attorneys wrote, "Those tools draw on inputs - performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics, 'AI‑native' ratings, and AI‑token consumption - that, by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability."
Beyond the specific allegations, this case highlights the growing tension between automated workforce management systems and employee protections. The metrics in question - including token consumption, a measure of AI tool usage - are inherently unfair to employees absent for legitimate reasons. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for how tech companies design and audit their performance algorithms.
Get the market news that matters in a five-minute read with Market Briefs, our free daily newsletter
This lawsuit is part of a broader trend in which employees challenge the increasing use of artificial intelligence in critical employment decisions. Similar litigation against other large technology firms has raised concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in algorithmic management.
In an email to CNBC, a Meta spokesperson said, "The claims lack merit and are not based on facts." The spokesperson added, "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI."
This case follows a recent federal ruling in a similar lawsuit against Workday, where the court decided that Workday must respond to allegations about its AI-driven recruitment software allegedly violating state and federal anti-discrimination laws. Workday rejected the accusations and, in a statement at the time, asserted that its AI recruiting software does not make hiring decisions "in California or anywhere else." A Workday representative said, "Our technology looks only at job qualifications, not protected traits like race, age, or disability. We rigorously test our products as part of our Responsible AI program to confirm our tools do not harm protected groups."
The Meta plaintiffs request that the court grant a "preliminary injunction maintaining the status quo of their employment" at Meta while an independent audit of the algorithm‑assisted selection process is conducted, and until the merits of their claims are resolved in arbitration.
The increasing reliance on algorithmic tools for firing, hiring, and performance reviews has drawn scrutiny from regulators and employee advocates. While companies argue that AI can reduce human bias, critics contend that flawed data inputs simply codify existing discrimination. The Workday ruling, which forced the company to defend its software in court, set a precedent that could embolden more workers to challenge opaque automated systems. If the Meta plaintiffs succeed in obtaining an independent audit, it may push other tech employers to redesign their metrics to accommodate protected leave and disabilities - or face similar legal risks.
Join Market Briefs, our free daily newsletter, for a quick daily rundown of the markets
