Dozens of Meta employees have filed a lawsuit accusing the social media giant of using artificial intelligence tools to identify workers for mass layoffs, alleging that the systems disproportionately targeted employees who requested protected leave, maternity leave, or disability accommodations.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relates to Meta’s decision to cut about 8,000 jobs earlier this year.

The plaintiffs claim the company relied on a range of internal AI systems, including AI-generated performance ratings and data from keystroke and activity monitoring, to determine which employees would be laid off.

“Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work,” reads the 71-page complaint. Instead, the 26 workers listed in the lawsuit allege the company used AI systems “to score, rank and select employees for inclusion on the list”.

The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary court order to prevent Meta from completing the layoffs while the case is being heard. They are also seeking remedies that may include reinstatement, back pay, lost stock awards, benefits and other damages.

The use of artificial intelligence in workplace decision-making has become an increasingly contentious issue, with workers raising concerns about potential bias, privacy violations and a lack of transparency. Regulators have also intensified scrutiny of the legality of such systems. In recent years, states including California, Colorado and Illinois have introduced laws and regulations aimed at protecting employees from discrimination linked to AI tools and automated decision-making systems.

The lawsuit alleges that Meta’s AI systems collect and analyse employee data, including performance ratings, productivity levels and other workplace metrics, to inform layoff decisions. According to the plaintiffs, these metrics may be unavailable for employees on medical or family leave, while workers with disabilities could record lower performance indicators, potentially placing them at a disadvantage.

“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,” reads the complaint.