The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace has been a topic of interest for employees, with many questioning how these tools impact their job security. A recent lawsuit filed by 26 Meta employees in northern California has shed light on a concerning issue – AI tools may be disproportionately targeting workers with disabilities or those on medical or parental leave.
The group of employees claims that they were laid off after being identified as underperformers by Meta's AI tools, which draw on inputs such as performance ratings, productivity metrics, and AI-native ratings. According to the lawsuit, the AI tools "draw on inputs-performance ratings, calibration scores, productivity and output metrics, 'AI-native' ratings, and AI-token consumption-that, by design, cannot be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose output is reduced by a disability."
The plaintiffs' argument is compelling – when employers use AI tools to track performance, employees who are absent from the workplace on protected leaves or are working in a limited capacity due to an accommodation or medical issue could rise to the top of the list in disproportionate numbers. This could be a discriminatory practice, and one that employers should be aware of and address.
In many cases, employees who take a medical or parental leave are expected to "make up" for the absence after their return by working more hours or meeting their annual targets. However, this is rarely possible, especially if an employee is away from the workplace for an extended period. Employers should adjust targets and expectations to reflect the reality of their employees' situations.
Absences are indeed disruptive and unpredictable, particularly in high-growth industries like tech. By rating employees who take protected leaves as "underperforming," employers shift the narrative and blame, potentially avoiding discriminatory claims. Employees should not accept a lowered performance rating without challenging it, especially if they believe it is tied to their absence.
While AI tools can be useful in managing employees, they still require human oversight and decision-making. Employers own the liability that flows from these decisions, and they must ensure that their AI tools are fair and unbiased. Employees who are concerned about their performance ratings or terminations should not hesitate to seek support and advocate for themselves.
