Meta at the Center of a Major Legal Scandal over Algorithms That May Have Selected Employees for Layoffs

One of the most high-profile cases involving the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace is unfolding in the United States. A total of 26 Meta employees have filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming that algorithms helped determine who would lose their jobs during mass layoffs. According to the plaintiffs, the system did not distinguish between low productivity and lawful absences from work — whether due to sick leave, parental leave or leave to care for a family member.

According to the lawsuit, the company used an entire network of internal AI tools and analytics systems. They collected data on virtually every aspect of employees’ digital activity: assessing performance, analyzing the use of corporate AI assistants, activity in work chats, email, computer activity history, the number of keystrokes and even how actively a person interacted with internal services. The algorithms then assigned employees performance ratings which, the plaintiffs claim, were used to compile layoff lists.

According to the claimants, the main problem is that the algorithms did not take legitimate reasons for absence into account. If someone spent several months on parental leave, was undergoing treatment after a serious illness or was caring for a close relative, the system simply recorded a decline in activity. As a result, employees exercising their legal rights could automatically receive lower ratings and end up among the candidates for layoffs. According to the plaintiffs, that is exactly what happened during the May round of layoffs, when Meta cut around 10% of its workforce — approximately 8,000 people.

Particular attention has been drawn to the fact that the lawsuit mentions Meta’s internal AI assistant, called Metamate, as well as specialized monitoring dashboards tracking employees’ use of neural network tools. The plaintiffs claim that this data also became part of the overall performance assessment.

Meta categorically denies the allegations. Company representatives say that artificial intelligence did not make termination decisions and was used only as an assistive tool. According to the company, the final decision always remained with department managers. However, a federal judge has already noted that the employees’ arguments raise «serious questions» and deserve detailed consideration, although the judge has so far refused to temporarily halt the layoffs.

Experts believe the case could become historic. If the court finds that the algorithms did discriminate against employees, it would establish an important legal precedent for the entire industry. Many large companies already use AI to assess employee performance, forecast effectiveness, create schedules and even select candidates for promotion or dismissal. At the same time, concerns are growing that such systems may reproduce hidden biases when trained on incomplete or inaccurate data.

This lawsuit could become the first major case to determine where the line lies between useful automation of human resources processes and unlawful discrimination through artificial intelligence. If the court sides with the employees, technology giants around the world will likely have to reconsider how their AI systems operate when making employment decisions.