Twenty-six Meta employees have filed a lawsuit accusing the company of using an internal AI platform to select targets for the thousands of jobs it cut earlier this year, according to Reuters. The suit alleges the tool, called Checkpoint, evaluated workers using opaque productivity metrics and large language model token usage, and that its criteria disproportionately affected people with disabilities and those who had taken maternity or medical leave.
The plaintiffs include engineers, managers, researchers and designers, as well as a director who had direct access to the AI platform, according to the complaint. Their names have been redacted. Nearly half say their terminations followed maternity or parental leave — protected activities the suit claims Checkpoint failed to account for. Others say they were targeted after taking medical leave for their own disabilities, bereavement leave, or time off to care for family members.
What the Complaint Alleges
Some plaintiffs claim Meta leadership specifically warned them against taking time off. The anonymous director said he was "discouraged and deterred from taking FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] leave that his treating provider had recommended, out of a well-founded and objective concern from a manager that such a leave would be held against him in the [reduction in force]."
The director also corroborates the claim that Checkpoint used protected leaves of absence against workers, arguing the platform "failed to distinguish employees' leave from lack of engagement." The current complaint seeks to block Meta from laying off the 26 plaintiffs. Because of legal agreements with the company, each plaintiff will have to file an independent suit, Reuters reports.
Meta's Response
A Meta spokesperson disputed the basic facts of the case. "Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI," the spokesperson told Reuters.
The lawsuit adds to scrutiny of how companies deploy AI in human resources, particularly when automated systems assess productivity without context for legally protected leave. The complaint does not establish that the allegations are true; the case is at an early stage, and the plaintiffs' request to block further layoffs remains unresolved.
Editorial Notes