Meta workers claiming AI fired them unlikely to see relief

The judge said he was not persuaded by the former employees' evidence, and noted the case presented an unusual issue.(CN) — A federal judge on Monday seemed unconvinced that a group of 26 former Meta employees had proved they were laid off by supervisors using metrics developed by artificial intelligence that targeted workers on protected leave.“I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits,” said U.S. District Judge William Orrick.The former employees are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Meta from altering their employment or leave status. Orrick previously denied the employees’ motion for a temporary restraining order against Meta, finding the employees hadn’t shown irreparable harm. On Monday, the Barack Obama appointee cited the evidence as the reason behind his hesitancy to grant relief.“The plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and they provide further evidence of harm, but they don’t persuade me that injunctive relief is warranted,” Orrick said.Four of the employees argued they would be removed from the United States without relief, but that alone was not enough to change Orrick’s tune.“On the immigration work authorization issue, I think the issue could be irreparable, but again, I don’t think the merits are close enough to warrant relief,” Orrick said.He noted the case hinges on “whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened,” and noted there wasn’t enough evidence in the record for him to conclude that.Andrea Mazingo, attorney representing the Meta workers, argued the company produced records that corroborate the workers’ claims, pointing to declarations from the company in which it recognized AI-driven impact as a factor in performance ratings.The workers accused Meta of using algorithmic systems to select employees to lay off and asked the court to order an audit of the company’s process. They also asked the court to order Meta to comply with a California law requiring companies to refrain from using AI or other automated tools to discriminate against job applicants or employees.“The relief we’re requesting is modest and severable,” Mazingo argued.But Meta argued the workers were asking for extraordinary relief without backing up their claims. It also argued it was complying with state law regarding AI use.“This whole matter started with allegations that Meta used AI to determine which employees to include in the reduction in force,” said Erin Connell, attorney for Meta. “There is no evidence of that. That did not happen. That remains true.”Meta argued the workers then shifted the argument to be that the company had used AI to generate performance ratings, which it denied doing.“The reality that, in some individual circumstances, managers may have recognized a particular employee’s skill with using AI is not remarkable, and it’s certainly not unlawful,” Connell said.The 26 unnamed plaintiffs were all on extended leave when the reduction-in-force notices went out in May to some 10% of the tech giant’s enormous staff. Some were on maternity or paternity leave; others were on medical leave. Those types of leave are “protected,” meaning you cannot be legally fired or retaliated against for taking them. One plaintiff says in the complaint he had been “discouraged and deterred from taking [medical] leave by a manager who warned that doing so would result in his selection for the anticipated reduction in force.”In their complaint, the plaintiffs say the tech firm — which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — “used a constellation of internal artificial intelligence systems,” including one that monitors employees’ keystrokes and computer activity, “to score, rank and select employees for inclusion on the list.” They say the system failed to account for workers on leave, effectively tanking their scores and earmarking them for layoffs.Orrick noted the case was “an unusual, or a new sort of issue” that was hard to gather evidence for at the outset and indicated an opinion, likely ruling in favor of Meta, would be issued shortly.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads