Twenty-six employees say Meta used artificial intelligence to develop a score to rank employees, and the score put employees on maternity and medical leave at a serious disadvantage.
(CN) – A federal judge appeared reluctant Thursday to issue a temporary restraining order against Meta that would have effectively reinstated the jobs of 26 former employees who say they were fired by supervisors using metrics developed by artificial intelligence.
“The damages are certainly real to the plaintiffs, but I don’t think they’re irreparable in the way the law requires,” Senior U.S. District Judge William Orrick said at the Zoom hearing.
Orrick said he may make an exception for the four foreign-born workers here on temporary work visas who say they face deportation if their jobs are not restored.
The 26 unnamed plaintiffs were all on extended leave when layoff notices went out in May for about 10% of the tech giant’s large staff. Some were on maternity or paternity leave; others were on medical leave. These types of leave are “protected,” meaning you cannot be legally fired or retaliated against for taking them. A plaintiff said in complaint he was “discouraged and prevented from taking (medical) leave by a manager who warned that doing so would result in his being selected for the proposed reduction in force”.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs say the tech firm, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, “used an array of internal artificial intelligence systems,” including a system that monitors employee keystrokes and computer activity, “to flag, rank and select employees for inclusion on the list.” They say the system failed to check for furloughed workers — that malfunction effectively lowered their scores and set them up for layoffs.
Meta has denied using AI to develop metrics to fire workers.
“There is no evidence that AI was used to make decisions in this power down,” Meta’s attorney, Erin Connell, told the judge Thursday. “It’s really based on speculation and conjecture.”
Furthermore, she added that there was nothing about the job losses that could be considered “irreparable harm” and thus qualify for a temporary restraining order.
“They’re not going to lose their health insurance,” Connell said. “They will lose their employer-subsidized health insurance.” She added: “It’s money. And it’s not a small amount of money.”
Orrick noted that laid-off employees could obtain health insurance through COBRA and then potentially be reimbursed for its cost during arbitration. He said the plaintiffs would likely be able to afford it, noting, “Many of them appear to have been overcompensated, perhaps even more than a federal district judge.”
As for the foreign-born workers, Connell said, “There has been no evidence that these individuals are on the verge of deportation.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Andrea Mazingo, argued that a temporary restraining order would “preserve the status quo,” or freeze everything in place, to avoid further harm to her clients while they await arbitration. She said many of the plaintiffs would lose out on equity grant programs — Meta shares given to them as a bonus — and having to look for a new job would also take a toll.
“When they have to bond with their babies and recover from illnesses, they suddenly have to look for new jobs,” Mazingo said.
Connell said an order would not preserve the status quo, but would reverse a decision made months ago.
“To ask Meta to return them to the positions they had in May would be asking them to go back in time,” Connell said. “Those positions are gone. They no longer exist.”
“Unfortunately, such restructuring is happening throughout the Bay Area,” she added. “Is this in the public interest? What are the broader implications?”
Orrick said he would rule on the restraining order within 24 hours and asked for additional briefing to provide details on some of the plaintiffs to help him decide on another motion for a preliminary injunction.
“Meta (must) explain specifically why those people, how those people ended up on the reduction in force list,” the judge said.
He set the next hearing for August 24.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
