Meta is currently embroiled in a legal battle as numerous employees have filed a lawsuit claiming the company utilized artificial intelligence systems to determine which workers would be laid off, allegedly affecting those on maternity leave, medical leave, and employees with disabilities disproportionately. The lawsuit, initiated in a federal court in California, contends that the technology giant employed AI-driven performance evaluations and employee activity data, encompassing productivity metrics, to select staff members for job cuts during a workforce reduction that impacted approximately 8,000 employees earlier this year.
The plaintiffs assert that Meta’s internal AI systems, used to score and rank employees, replaced traditional evaluations conducted by managers. They argue that these systems did not take into account approved leave periods, consequently assigning lower performance scores to employees who had taken family or medical leave or received accommodations for disabilities. Among those involved in the lawsuit is a scientist who received notice of her dismissal merely two days before she was due to give birth. Additionally, an engineer recovering from an injury claims his performance rating suffered due to his absence, while a manager on medical leave alleges he was terminated shortly after starting his leave.
The group of employees seeks a court order to pause the layoffs as the legal proceedings continue. They are also demanding reinstatement, compensation for lost wages and benefits, and an independent review of Meta’s AI systems. In response to the allegations, Meta has denied the claims, maintaining that decisions regarding workforce and organizational changes are made by people rather than artificial intelligence systems.
This legal challenge emerges amid increasing concerns about the use of AI in workplace decision-making processes. Critics caution that automated systems could potentially introduce bias against employees who take legally protected leave, thereby highlighting the need for scrutinizing the role of AI in employment practices. As the case unfolds, it may set a significant precedent for how companies can or cannot use AI in human resource decisions.