OAKLAND — Twenty-six current Meta employees filed a federal lawsuit against the company on July 13, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that Meta used internal artificial intelligence systems to score and rank workers for layoffs, with the process disproportionately affecting those on protected medical or parental leave.

The lawsuit claims Meta deployed a constellation of internal AI systems to evaluate employees for inclusion on termination lists. According to the filing, these systems included an internal assistant called Metamate, employee-trained AI agents, dashboards tracking AI token usage, and data monitoring keystrokes and workplace activity. The plaintiffs allege these tools factored in performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity metrics, AI-native ratings, and AI-token consumption to generate employee scores.

Critically, the plaintiffs assert the AI-driven ranking process failed to exclude employees who were on protected medical, parental, or family leave. Because the system relied heavily on output-based metrics, employees on leave—whose activity levels were naturally reduced during their absence—received lower scores and were disproportionately selected for layoff, the suit alleges. About half of the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons, including eight women who had taken maternity or pregnancy-related leave, four men who had taken parental leave, and one woman who had taken leave to care for a family member and later bereavement leave.

The lawsuit accuses Meta of violating multiple federal and state laws, specifically citing the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It also references Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a 1971 Supreme Court ruling on disparate impact liability. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the algorithmically assisted selection process falls more heavily on women than on men because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave.

The suit further alleges that Meta did not test its AI systems for bias, a failure that would contravene recently adopted legislation in California and New York City requiring bias audits for automated employment decision tools. All 26 plaintiffs remain employed by Meta, though their separations are scheduled to begin on July 22, 2026. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to maintain their employment status while an independent audit of the selection process is conducted and their claims are resolved through arbitration.

The case raises urgent questions about the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions, particularly when such systems may inadvertently penalize legally protected employee statuses. If the court finds that Meta’s AI tools operated without safeguards for workers on leave, it could set a precedent for how companies deploy algorithmic management under existing anti-discrimination laws and emerging AI regulations in states like California and New York.

Meta has denied the allegations. Spokesperson Tracy Clayton stated, “These claims lack merit and are not based on facts.” She added, “Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.” The company’s position directly contradicts the plaintiffs’ central claim that AI systems played a decisive role in identifying employees for termination.