Employees sue Meta, alleging discrimination in using AI to make layoffs

In a significant legal development, a group of current and former employees of Meta has filed a lawsuit against the tech giant, claiming that the company employed artificial intelligence in a biased manner during its recent layoffs. The lawsuit, initiated on Monday, accuses Meta of breaching various laws protecting individuals on leave due to pregnancy and disabilities, among other issues. The plaintiffs, who are seeking to resolve their grievances individually through arbitration, were part of the 10% workforce reduction that occurred during Meta's layoffs in May. The legal complaint, lodged in the Northern District Court of California, contends that Meta's internal AI systems failed to account for approved absences when deciding which employees to terminate. The attorneys representing the 26 unnamed workers argued that the algorithms utilized metrics such as performance ratings, productivity, and AI engagement that inherently disadvantage employees on medical or family leave, or those with disabilities, as their metrics would naturally decline during such times. The lawsuit highlights growing concerns regarding the implications of AI on employment practices, particularly for vulnerable groups. The plaintiffs are requesting a preliminary injunction to preserve their employment status at Meta while an independent review of the AI-driven selection process is conducted and their claims are evaluated in arbitration. This lawsuit follows a recent ruling by a federal judge in California against technology firm Workday, which faced similar allegations regarding AI use in hiring practices. In that case, the judge mandated that Workday confront claims about its AI-powered recruitment tools potentially violating discrimination laws. Workday has vehemently denied these allegations, asserting that their software focuses solely on job qualifications without considering protected characteristics like race or disability. Meta has responded to the lawsuit, asserting that the claims lack factual basis and that decisions regarding workforce management are made by human personnel, not AI systems. As concerns rise over AI's role in the workplace, this case may set important precedents for how technology interacts with employment rights and protections.