Twenty-six former employees of Meta have filed a lawsuit alleging that the company used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted systems that unfairly targeted workers with medical conditions, disabilities, and employees on protected medical leave during a recent round of layoffs.
The lawsuit was filed on July 14, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. According to the complaint, Meta's workforce reduction affected nearly 8,000 employees earlier this year. The plaintiffs claim AI-driven workplace tools influenced layoff decisions in a way that disadvantaged employees with legally protected absences.
According to the lawsuit, Meta relied on AI-assisted tools and employee performance data while evaluating workers for layoffs. The plaintiffs allege that these systems assessed factors such as productivity, workplace activity, communication patterns, and the use of internal AI tools.
As reported in CNBC TV18, the lawsuit states that these tools included Metamate, the company's large language model assistant; an employee-developed knowledge system referred to as a "second brain" that organized workplace communications and documents; and a productivity metric generated by analyzing data such as keystrokes, screen activity, emails, and web browsing history.
The complaint argues that the technology did not properly account for periods when employees were absent because of approved medical leave, disability accommodations, pregnancy-related leave, or family caregiving responsibilities. As a result, affected employees allegedly received lower performance evaluations, increasing their likelihood of being selected for layoffs.
As reported in Guardian, according to the complaint,
The result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for layoff, based on scoring that not only failed to account for their protected leaves, but in effect penalized the employees for exercising their legal rights to these leaves.The Court Complaint
Several plaintiffs say they were on approved medical, disability, pregnancy, parental, or family leave when they were informed that their positions had been eliminated. Others state they had requested workplace accommodations for health conditions before the layoffs occurred.
One of the plaintiffs, a Meta scientist, was on approved prenatal leave when she received notice of her layoff just two days before giving birth. Another plaintiff, an engineer, alleged that his performance rating was reduced because he had taken time off to recover from an injury. A third plaintiff, a manager on approved medical leave, said the company terminated his employment 16 days after his leave began.
The lawsuit alleges that these employees were treated differently from colleagues who had not taken protected leave.
The former employees allege that Meta violated several employment laws designed to protect workers with health conditions and those taking approved leave.
These include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specific medical and family reasons, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as reported in MSN.
The complaint also references laws in California and New York City that require employers to assess certain AI-based employment tools for potential bias before they are used in workplace decisions.
Meta has denied that AI determined who would lose their jobs. A company spokesperson stated that managers made the final layoff decisions and that employees were not selected for termination because of disabilities, medical conditions, or protected leave.
A Meta spokesperson told the Guardian,
These claims lack merit and are not based on facts. Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.Meta Spokesperson
The company has not publicly disclosed additional details regarding the internal role of AI-assisted tools during the layoff process.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to temporarily pause the layoffs while legal proceedings continue. They are also seeking reinstatement to their previous positions, compensation for lost wages and benefits, damages, and an independent evaluation of the AI systems that were allegedly used during the workforce reduction.
According to the complaint, the layoffs may also affect employees' access to employer-sponsored health insurance and, in some cases, their immigration status.
The case could provide an early legal test of how AI-assisted employment tools are evaluated under existing U.S. disability, medical leave, and anti-discrimination laws.
The court has not yet ruled on the allegations, and the claims remain unproven.
(Rh/SS/MSM)