Twenty-six current and former Meta employees have filed a federal lawsuit alleging the company used artificial intelligence to select workers for redundancy, a process they say disproportionately targeted those who had taken protected leave such as maternity or medical leave. The case, filed in northern California, challenges the 8,000 layoffs Meta announced earlier this year and raises urgent questions about the role of AI in HR decision-making.
In a 71-page complaint, the plaintiffs wrote: "Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work. Instead, Meta used a constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems - including a system referred to internally as 'Metamate,' employee-trained 'second-brain' agents, keystroke- and activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration - to score, rank and select employees for inclusion on the list."
How the AI systems allegedly worked
Meta began its "mass reduction in force" notifications in May, cutting roughly 10% of its workforce. The company had introduced the AI monitoring tools the previous month, the plaintiffs say. The systems collected performance metrics, keystroke patterns, and other data points to generate rankings that fed into the termination list.
The lawsuit argues that employees who had taken time away from work - such as those on parental or medical leave - had fewer data points captured by the monitoring tools. This made them more likely to be flagged for redundancy, effectively penalising them for exercising legal rights to protected leave. All 26 plaintiffs had requested or been approved for protected leave in the past 24 months.
Meta's response and expert view
In a statement, Meta said the claims "lack merit" and that "workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI."
Dr Ilia Kolochenko, a lawyer and founder of cybersecurity firm ImmuniWeb, said that regulating AI to prevent such issues could "inevitably produce more harm than good." "Sadly, banning or overregulating the use of AI in HR will merely aggravate both intentional and unintentional discrimination," he said. "Automated HR systems have existed for many decades, assisting organisations to make decisions on their workforce. With the current trend to restrict or even entirely ban AI in HR decision-making processes, most organisations will either conceal the use of AI or shift back to non-AI systems."
Why this matters for HR professionals
The lawsuit highlights the growing challenges of implementing AI for Human Resources, from performance monitoring to layoff decisions. For HR leaders, the case is a stark reminder that algorithmic tools can inadvertently introduce bias, especially when they rely on incomplete data. Human oversight, transparent criteria, and regular audits are critical to mitigate legal and reputational risk.
As AI becomes embedded in workforce decisions, HR executives must understand both its potential and its pitfalls. An AI Learning Path for CHROs can help build the skills to evaluate AI tools, ensure compliance with employment laws, and design fairer processes.
Your membership also unlocks:
