Did Meta Use AI to Target Workers With Medical Conditions for Layoffs?

Artificial intelligence is increasingly influencing how companies hire, monitor, evaluate, promote, and terminate workers. But can AI automate these processes fairly without discrimination?

Former employees’ complaints against Meta Platforms raise a significant question: What happens when automated workplace tools allegedly penalize employees for taking legally protected medical, pregnancy, parental, or family leave?

Twenty-six Meta employees have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the technology company used artificial intelligence and automated productivity measurements to help select workers for mass layoffs. 

According to the complaint, the systems disproportionately disadvantaged employees with disabilities, medical conditions, and protected absences because those workers could not generate the same activity scores as employees who were continuously working.

What Are Employees Alleging Against Meta?

The employees allege that Meta relied on artificial intelligence, automated productivity measurements, and digital activity data when determining which workers would lose their jobs.

According to the employees, these systems measured factors such as keystrokes, screen activity, emails, browser history, AI usage, and other indicators of workplace activity. They claim this approach unfairly disadvantaged employees who had taken medical, pregnancy, parental, caregiving, or other protected leave because those workers naturally produced less digital activity while they were away.

The employees further allege that Meta did not adequately account for approved leave, medical conditions, or workplace accommodations when comparing employees. As a result, they claim that time away from work may have been treated as reduced productivity or weaker performance.

Some employees also allege that managers discouraged them from taking protected leave or suggested that doing so could make them more vulnerable during layoffs. They argue that automated tools and performance rankings may have allowed protected absences and disability-related limitations to influence employment decisions.

Meta Denies That AI Made the Layoff Decisions

The allegations have not been proven in court, and Meta disputes them.

A Meta spokesperson said the employees’ claims lack merit and are not based on the facts. The company maintains that its workforce and organizational decisions were made by people rather than artificial intelligence.

That disagreement may become a central issue in the case. The employees do not necessarily have to prove that an AI system independently decided to fire them. A legal dispute may instead focus on whether managers relied on automated rankings, surveillance data, or AI-generated recommendations when making the final decisions.

Human approval may not erase a discriminatory result if the information presented to the decision-maker was incomplete, biased, or improperly counted protected leave against an employee.

Can an Employer Count Medical Leave Against a Worker?

Federal law may protect eligible employees from being penalized for certain medical and family-related absences.

The Family and Medical Leave Act generally prohibits covered employers from interfering with protected leave or retaliating against employees for using it. The U.S. Department of Labor specifically states that an employer may not use an employee’s request for or use of FMLA leave as a negative factor in an employment action.

Employers may still conduct legitimate layoffs that include employees who happen to be on leave. Protected leave does not guarantee that a worker can never lose a job during a genuine reduction in force. However, the employee’s leave generally cannot be a reason for the selection, and the worker should not be placed in a worse position simply because they exercised a protected right.

A system that treats a leave-related decline in measured activity as poor performance could therefore create serious legal concerns.

Disability Discrimination May Also Be Involved

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits covered employers from discriminating against qualified employees because of a disability. Those protections apply to many aspects of employment, including layoffs and termination decisions.

The ADA may also require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would create an undue hardship. Depending on the circumstances, reasonable accommodations can include schedule modifications, medical leave, telework, or changes to how an employee performs certain job functions.

The Meta employees allege that some workers had requested or received disability accommodations. One plaintiff allegedly disclosed a serious health condition and received approval for medical leave but was discouraged from taking it by a manager who warned that the absence could place the employee at risk during layoffs. The lawsuit also claims the company failed to provide an appropriate accommodation to that worker.

Whether those allegations can be proven will depend on evidence such as accommodation requests, medical leave records, manager communications, performance evaluations, and the criteria used to select employees for termination.

Pregnancy and Parental Leave Are Central to the Claims

Approximately half of the plaintiffs reportedly took leave connected to pregnancy, parenting, caregiving, or bereavement. The group includes women who took maternity or pregnancy-related leave, men who took parental leave, and a worker who took leave to care for a family member.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers from taking adverse action against an employee when pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is a motivating factor. Its protections cover layoffs as well as hiring, pay, promotions, assignments, and other employment decisions.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act may provide additional protections by requiring covered employers to reasonably accommodate known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Employers also generally may not retaliate against workers for requesting or using those accommodations.

The Meta lawsuit argues that a productivity system based heavily on continuous activity may place workers who take pregnancy and caregiving leave at a particular disadvantage.

Can a Neutral AI System Still Be Discriminatory?

An automated system does not necessarily need to be programmed to discriminate before it creates unlawful results.

A seemingly neutral rule can sometimes have a disproportionate negative effect on a protected group. For example, measuring workers solely by keystrokes or digital activity might appear objective. But if the system does not account for approved leave, disability accommodations, or differences between job duties, its results may not accurately measure employee performance.

Federal employment laws may prohibit neutral workplace policies that disproportionately harm protected employees when those policies are not sufficiently related to the job or necessary to the operation of the business.

The Meta plaintiffs allege that the company’s selection process had a disparate impact on women because women disproportionately take pregnancy and caregiving leave. They also allege that workers with disabilities were harmed because medical limitations or treatment reduced the activity their productivity systems were designed to measure.

Employers May Be Responsible for the Tools They Use

Artificial intelligence can process enormous amounts of information, but it cannot determine whether an employment decision is lawful.

An automated tool may fail to understand why an employee was absent, whether the worker had an approved accommodation, whether two employees performed different kinds of work, or whether a manager entered inaccurate information. It may also reproduce biases found in the data used to build or train the system.

Employers generally remain responsible for complying with employment laws even when they use software, algorithms, consultants, or third-party platforms. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has warned that AI and automated technologies may be involved in workplace surveillance, performance recommendations, and decisions about who will be laid off or terminated.

A company may therefore need to examine not only who made the final decision, but also how the candidate list was created, which data was considered, whether protected absences were excluded, and whether anyone reviewed the system for discriminatory outcomes.

What Should Employees Do if They Suspect an AI-Assisted Layoff Was Discriminatory?

Employees may never be told that an algorithm, productivity dashboard, or automated ranking affected their termination. Warning signs can nevertheless include:

• A sudden drop in performance ratings after medical or parental leave
• Comments suggesting that leave harmed the employee’s productivity
• Discipline based on attendance that should have been protected
• Comparisons based on keystrokes, online activity, messages, or AI usage
• A termination shortly after requesting an accommodation
• Workers on leave being disproportionately included in a reduction in force
• Managers refusing to explain the criteria used to select employees
• Strong prior evaluations followed by an unexplained low ranking

Employees should preserve whatever information they can lawfully access, including layoff notices, performance reviews, accommodation requests, leave approvals, emails, chat messages, employee handbooks, severance agreements, and notes describing conversations with supervisors or human resources. If a severance agreement is presented to an employee, they should always make sure to have an attorney review it prior to executing it.

Workers should not take confidential company data they are not authorized to possess. An employment attorney can help determine which records may be relevant and how additional evidence might be obtained through the legal process.

Contact Morgan & Morgan About Workplace Discrimination

Losing a job is difficult under any circumstances. It can be especially devastating when an employee believes they were selected because they became ill, requested an accommodation due to an injury or disability, became pregnant, cared for a family member, or used legally protected leave.

Artificial intelligence does not give employers permission to disregard workers’ rights. Whether a termination recommendation comes from a manager, a productivity dashboard, or an algorithm, employment decisions must still comply with applicable federal and state laws.

Morgan & Morgan’s employment attorneys may be able to review the circumstances surrounding your termination, the timing of your medical leave or accommodation request, and the criteria your employer used during a layoff. Contact Morgan & Morgan for a free case evaluation to learn more about your legal options.