A U.S. judge on Friday rejected a bid by 26 employees of Meta Platforms to block the tech giant from laying them off while they pursue claims that they were targeted for job cuts
The report indicates that a U.S. judge on Friday rejected a bid by 26 employees of Meta Platforms to block the tech giant from laying them off while they pursue claims that they were targeted for job cuts by the company’s AI-powered tools because they have disabilities or took medical leave.
It further notes that u.S. District Judge William Orrick in Oakland, California, in a written order, opens new tab stated he would not stop Meta from carrying out the layoffs beginning July 22 while the merits of the workers’ novel legal claims are decided in private arbitration.
The judge stated the workers could not show that losing their jobs amounted to the “irreparable harm” required for him to issue an emergency order blocking the layoffs.
A Meta spokesperson declined to comment. The company has denied wrongdoing and stated that decisions involving the layoffs were made by humans.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in a joint statement stated that while Orrick denied their request, he also recognized that the lawsuit raises “serious questions” about Meta’s conduct.
“The Court expressly stated that it may reconsider its determinations ‘based on any additional evidence the parties provide regarding whether and how AI was used’ in the reduction in force,” they said.
Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs as the company doubles down on its investments in AI.
The lawsuit filed on Monday claims that in selecting jobs to cut, Meta relied on AI tools that measured productivity and AI token usage, disadvantaging people who missed work because of medical conditions or to care for family members. The company also relied on performance reviews based in part on employees’ adoption of AI, the plaintiffs said.
The case appears to be the first against a major U.S. company to challenge the alleged use of AI in conducting layoffs.
The plaintiffs had asked Orrick for a temporary restraining order blocking Meta from completing its layoffs while they pursue their claims in private arbitration.
Their motion for a preliminary injunction, a longer-lasting temporary order, is pending. Orrick on Friday suggested that he could change his mind once he has more information about the layoffs.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs stated during a hearing on Thursday that along with their jobs and salaries, the workers stood to lose valuable stock options and their health insurance, imperiling their medical care for pregnancies and other conditions.
“There’s no do-over for bonding with a new baby or giving birth or having active medical treatment,” one of the lawyers, Barbara Cowan, told Orrick.
Erin Connell, who represents Meta, countered that the workers were losing only employer-subsidized insurance, and not their coverage altogether. Those are the typical kinds of damages that can be recouped later on if the plaintiffs win their cases in arbitration, Connell said.
