AI Layoffs Targeted New Moms?

Meta employees say the company used AI-backed scoring to help pick workers for layoffs, and they claim that the system hit people on medical, parental, and disability leave hardest.

Quick Take

Twenty-six current and former Meta employees filed a federal lawsuit in Oakland, California, over the layoffs.
The complaint says Meta used internal AI-assisted tools, productivity data, and ranking systems to choose workers.
The plaintiffs say protected leave lowered the activity scores used in the layoff process.
Meta says the claims lack merit and that people, not AI, made the workforce decisions.

What the lawsuit says happened

The case centers on Meta’s large round of layoffs and a claim that the company used opaque internal tools to sort workers for termination.

Reporting says the company cut roughly 8,000 jobs, or about 10 percent of its workforce, and the plaintiffs say they were told in May that their jobs would end on July 22.

The lawsuit says Meta relied on AI-assisted systems, including internal productivity tools, activity monitoring, and algorithmic performance rankings.

Reuters reported that the complaint also names tools such as “Metamate,” along with data drawn from keystrokes, screen content, emails, browser history, and AI token usage. The workers argue that these signals punish people who are away from work for approved leave.

Why protected leave sits at the center

The plaintiffs say the scoring system could not fairly account for medical leave, parental leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, family-care leave, or disability accommodations.

ABC News reported that the complaint says many scores and ratings “by design” could not be earned by employees who were on protected leave or whose output was reduced by disability.

That claim matters because leave is supposed to protect workers, not turn them into easier targets. The lawsuit says Meta did not pause the system for a leave-neutral review and instead used the same metrics on people who were absent for lawful reasons.

One reported detail makes that point sharper: a plaintiff allegedly got layoff notice while on approved pre-birth leave, two days before giving birth.

What Meta is saying in response

Meta has denied the case in plain language. Reuters reported that the company said the claims “lack merit” and that workforce decisions were made by people, not AI.

That denial does not end the dispute, but it does show the core fight: the employees say software helped steer the layoffs, while Meta says managers made the calls.

The court has already refused one emergency attempt to stop the layoffs, which leaves the merits unresolved. That ruling matters, but only as a procedural step.

It does not prove the plaintiffs are right, and it does not clear Meta either. It only shows that the workers still have to prove how the layoff chain worked and how much weight the tools carried.

Why the case is drawing attention

This dispute is getting so much attention because it hits two sensitive issues at once: job cuts and artificial intelligence. Reuters described it as a novel case, and that novelty can pull public debate toward the technology while the harder question sits underneath it.

The real issue is not whether Meta used software. It is whether protected-leave workers were disadvantaged by the way those tools shaped the ranking process.

The case also shows why these fights are so hard to prove. The most important records are inside the company, including ranking sheets, audit logs, internal guidance, and any bias testing Meta may have done.

Until those records come out, the public will mostly see a clash between serious allegations and a firm denial. That is a familiar shape in modern employment law, but the stakes feel bigger here because the tools were so deeply tied to worker behavior.