A US federal judge has refused to temporarily block Meta Platforms from laying off 26 employees who claim the company’s artificial intelligence systems unfairly influenced their selection for job cuts.
The workers allege that Meta’s AI-assisted evaluation tools disadvantaged employees with disabilities and those who took medical or family leave. Meta denies wrongdoing and maintains that humans made the final layoff decisions.
Judge Allows Meta Layoffs to Proceed
US District Judge William Orrick issued the ruling on Friday in Oakland, California.
Orrick declined to stop Meta from completing the layoffs, which are scheduled to begin on July 22. The workers will continue pursuing their claims through private arbitration.
According to the judge, the employees did not demonstrate that losing their jobs would cause the type of “irreparable harm” required for an emergency court order.
A Meta spokesperson declined to comment on the decision. However, the company has previously denied the allegations.
Workers Raise Questions About Meta’s AI Tools
Lawyers representing the employees said the ruling did not resolve the central issues in the case.
Although Orrick rejected their request for immediate protection, the workers’ legal team noted that he recognised the lawsuit raises serious questions about Meta’s conduct.
The judge also indicated that he could reconsider parts of his decision if either side provides further evidence explaining whether Meta used AI during the layoff process and how those systems affected employees.
Therefore, the court battle over Meta’s alleged use of artificial intelligence in workforce reductions is likely to continue.
Meta Announced Thousands of Job Cuts
Meta reportedly notified nearly 8,000 employees in May that their positions would be eliminated.
The planned cuts represent approximately 10% of the company’s global workforce. They come as Meta continues to increase spending on artificial intelligence technology and infrastructure.
The 26 plaintiffs received layoff notices in May. Many are expected to officially leave the company on July 22, while others could be dismissed later in July or during August.
According to court filings, the workers remain on Meta’s payroll. However, they lost access to company systems on May 20 and have not performed work for Meta since then.
Lawsuit Claims AI Influenced Layoff Rankings
The lawsuit alleges that Meta relied on AI-powered systems to measure employee performance, productivity and the use of AI tokens.
According to the workers, these tools placed employees at a disadvantage when they missed work because of medical conditions, disabilities or family-care responsibilities.
The plaintiffs also claim that Meta considered performance reviews that were partly linked to how frequently employees adopted and used the company’s AI tools.
As a result, employees who took legally protected leave may have received lower scores despite having valid reasons for being away from work.
Meta disputes that account. The company says human managers, rather than automated systems, made the decisions about which jobs to eliminate.
Case Could Test AI Use in Workplace Decisions
The lawsuit appears to be one of the first cases against a major US company challenging the alleged use of artificial intelligence in large-scale layoffs.
Its outcome could become important for other employers that use automated tools to monitor performance or assist with workforce decisions.
AI systems are increasingly used to analyse employee activity, productivity and communication. However, such tools may create legal risks when their data fails to account for disabilities, medical leave or other legally protected circumstances.
The Meta case could therefore help clarify how existing employment and discrimination laws apply to AI-assisted layoff decisions.
Employees Sought Emergency Protection
The plaintiffs asked Orrick to issue a temporary restraining order preventing Meta from finalising their layoffs.
Their request for a preliminary injunction, which would provide longer-lasting temporary protection, remains pending.
During a hearing on Thursday, the employees’ lawyers argued that the workers could lose more than their salaries. They said the layoffs would also affect stock options and employer-supported health insurance.
Some plaintiffs are receiving treatment for medical conditions or preparing for childbirth. Their lawyers argued that financial compensation at a later date might not fully repair the personal harm caused by losing employment and insurance during those periods.
Attorney Barbara Cowan told the court that certain life events, including giving birth, caring for a new baby and receiving active medical treatment, cannot simply be repeated later.
Meta Says Financial Losses Can Be Recovered
Meta attorney Erin Connell argued that the employees would not lose access to health insurance entirely.
Instead, they would lose the company’s financial contribution toward that coverage. Connell said these losses are similar to other employment-related damages that could be repaid if the workers eventually succeed in arbitration.
This argument was central to the judge’s decision that the employees had not proved they faced irreparable harm.
However, Orrick suggested that additional information about Meta’s layoff process and its alleged use of AI could affect future rulings.
Dispute Will Continue in Private Arbitration
Meta’s employment agreements reportedly require workers to pursue workplace disputes through individual arbitration rather than through a class-action lawsuit in court.
However, the plaintiffs argue that those agreements do not prevent them from asking a court for temporary protection.
Arbitration clauses are common at large US companies. Employers often argue that arbitration provides a faster and less expensive alternative to traditional litigation.
Critics, however, say mandatory arbitration can favour companies and discourage employees from bringing workplace claims.
Exceptions allowing temporary court relief are also common. Nevertheless, companies usually invoke them in cases involving stolen trade secrets or the attempted solicitation of clients and employees, rather than layoffs involving at-will workers.
Lawsuit Identifies Several Internal Meta Systems
The anonymous plaintiffs include Meta engineers, managers, researchers and designers.
They claim the company used several internal AI-assisted systems to score employees and rank them for possible termination.
One system identified in the lawsuit is “Metamate,” a large language model assistant used within Meta.
The workers also refer to an employee-trained “second brain,” which allegedly analysed internal documents and communications.
In addition, the lawsuit describes a productivity score that was allegedly generated by reviewing information such as keystrokes, screen activity, emails and browsing history.
These allegations have not been proven, and Meta denies that AI systems made its layoff decisions.
Protected Leave May Have Lowered AI Scores
According to the lawsuit, Meta did not pause its employee-monitoring and evaluation systems when workers were on holiday or legally protected leave.
The plaintiffs claim that their AI adoption and productivity scores declined while they were absent, even though they were not expected to work during those periods.
Those lower scores were allegedly used as inputs during the layoff-selection process.
The employees argue that this system disproportionately harmed people with disabilities, medical conditions and family-care responsibilities.
Meta AI Layoff Case Remains Unresolved
The latest ruling allows Meta to proceed with the planned layoffs, but it does not settle the workers’ discrimination claims.
The employees may still seek a preliminary injunction, while their broader cases will continue through individual arbitration.
Further evidence about how Meta used its AI-assisted workplace systems could become crucial. The case may also influence how other companies design and monitor automated tools used in hiring, performance reviews and layoffs.
