{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T08:02:06.192Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"stroke","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":1,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2024-marana-arizona-gaggle-alert-on-pupils-unsent-draft-email-led-to-suspension-federal-court-lets-free-speech-claim-proceed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Gaggle is a subscription, AI-based safety management software program that ... program that monitors students’ keystrokes on their laptops.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"in October 2024, her son was drafting an email to a teacher at her home about a grade when he started typing out jokes. ... The threat was flagged by a monitoring software used by the school districts on their ,called Gaggle.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"immediately deleted the message and closed his laptop, without","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the family's complaint, Gaggle, the AI-based safety management software the district ran on school laptops, monitors students' keystrokes, and it flagged a threat-like joke the pupil typed at home in October 2024 in a draft email to a teacher that he deleted without sending.","causal_attribution":"The family's allegation; the district declined to comment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Within an hour of ... School Resource ... in class, and they were concerned about a possible threat. ... reported having received a Gaggle notification regarding ... The Gaggle notification included a photograph of ... were being tracked or that anyone could see the draft email.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court's order recites the complaint's allegation that, within an hour, the principal and the school resource officer called the mother after the principal received a Gaggle notification that included a photograph of the pupil's screen showing the draft email, and that neither mother nor son knew his keystrokes were being tracked.","causal_attribution":"Allegations taken as true for the motion; not findings."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"would be suspended for ten days ‘for using a school device to write about ... suspended for forty-five days, to include the ten days currently being served, with the ... On December 5, 2024, ... suspension but modifying the length of ... suspension to nine days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the allegations the order recites, the pupil was suspended for ten days for using a school device to write about shooting up the school; a long-term suspension hearing set a 45-day suspension, reducible to eleven days with counselling; appeals affirmed it, and on 5 December 2024 the superintendent affirmed the suspension but shortened it to nine days.","causal_attribution":"The family's account of the district's disciplinary decisions."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to ... dismiss regarding Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. ... the Court will dismiss his procedural due process ... to state a procedural due process claim arising from his long-term suspension. ... Dismiss (Doc. 20) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In an order filed on 30 March 2026, the District of Arizona granted the district's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: it declined to dismiss the First Amendment claim and dismissed the procedural due process claims over the ten-day and long-term suspensions.","causal_attribution":"none"},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I had no idea that, down to the keystroke which was on the computer for a few seconds and deleted, that that would be seen ... MUSD declined to comment on this story, citing the pending litigation","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The pupil's mother told KOLD she had not known that a few seconds of deleted keystrokes could be seen; the district declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.","causal_attribution":"none"}],"effects":[{"label":"pupil suspended after an AI monitoring alert on an unsent, deleted draft email (family's allegations)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (CourtListener RECAP copy of ECF 33, HTTP 200, all 17 pages); no translation. Order of the US District Court for the District of Arizona filed 30 March 2026 on the defendants' motion to dismiss; its factual background takes the first amended complaint's allegations as true for that purpose.","independence_group":"d-ariz-4-25-cv-00377-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (CourtListener RECAP copy of ECF 1, the complaint filed 15 July 2025, HTTP 200); no translation. The first amended complaint (ECF 7) was not read; the order recites it.","independence_group":"family-complaint-d-ariz-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.kold.com/2025/08/14/family-sues-marana-usd-after-student-was-suspended-school-shooting-joke/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200); no translation. KOLD 13 News report of 14 August 2025 interviewing the pupil's mother and the family's lawyer; the district declined to comment. Same family account as the complaint.","independence_group":"family-complaint-d-ariz-2025"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The district's account of the alert and its decisions.","What category or score, if any, Gaggle assigned to the text, and whether a human reviewer at Gaggle saw it before the school.","How the case will be decided."],"geography":{"basis":"The pupil attended a school of the Marana Unified School District in Arizona, which issued the laptop, ran the monitoring and imposed the suspension; the suit is in the District of Arizona.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_claim_about, informed_decision_about): according to the family's complaint, AI-based monitoring software flagged a pupil's deleted, unsent draft and the alert led to his suspension, and a federal court order of March 2026 lets the family's First Amendment claim proceed. The facts are the family's allegations; the district has not commented. The pupil is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The family's complaint describes Gaggle as AI-based safety management software that monitors students' keystrokes, and alleges, as the court's order recites, that Gaggle sent the principal a notification with a photograph of the pupil's screen showing a deleted, unsent draft containing a threat-like joke. That automated flag of his text as concerning content is what brought the draft to the school's attention: the principal and school resource officer called within the hour, and the district suspended him for writing it. The district has not commented, and how the software classified the text is not described beyond the notification.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona: family says a Gaggle alert on a pupil's unsent joke email led to his suspension; federal court lets their free-speech claim proceed","summary":"On 9 October 2024 a Marana Unified School District pupil in Arizona, typing at home on a school Chromebook in front of his mother, wrote a threat-like joke about shooting up the school in a draft email to a teacher and deleted it without sending it, according to his family's federal lawsuit. The family says Gaggle, the AI-based monitoring software the district used, flagged it: the principal received a Gaggle notification with a photograph of the screen and, with the school resource officer, called the mother within the hour. The family says the pupil was suspended for ten days, a long-term suspension hearing imposed 45 days reducible to eleven with counselling, and the superintendent finally affirmed a nine-day suspension in December 2024. In March 2026 the District of Arizona let the family's First Amendment claim proceed and dismissed its procedural due process claims. The district declined to comment to the press.","incidentDate":"2024-10-09","incidentEndDate":"2024-12-05","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-07-15","aiSystem":"Gaggle, described in the family's complaint as subscription, AI-based safety management software that monitors students' keystrokes on school laptops; its notification to the principal included a photograph of the pupil's screen","aiProduct":"Gaggle (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to his family's lawsuit, a Gaggle alert on a deleted, unsent joke in a draft email led a school district to suspend a pupil; the superintendent finally set nine days. A federal court let the family's free-speech claim proceed.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the pupil suspended after the Gaggle alert (complaint, order and KOLD). His parents are plaintiffs on his behalf and are not counted separately.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446/gov.uscourts.azd.1450446.33.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, District of Arizona, No. 4:25-cv-00377, order on motion to dismiss filed 30 Mar 2026 (ECF 33)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:21:47.656673+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:21:47.656673+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["school","student-monitoring","gaggle","suspension","first-amendment","lawsuit"]},{"id":"2026-us-meta-26-employees-sue-alleging-ai-assisted-may-layoff-selection-penalized-protected-leave","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"OAKLAND DIVISION","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Filed 07/13/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 13, 2026, bringing claims against Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous plaintiffs (Does 1 through 26) filed a complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, alleging employment discrimination in the May 2026 reduction in force.","causal_attribution":"The filing of the complaint is documented by the court record. The complaint establishes only the plaintiffs’ allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"artificial-intelligence-assisted systems to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"algorithmic productivity scoring drawn from keystroke, screen-content, mouse,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used a set of internal AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for the termination list: the Metamate internal large-language-model assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and other activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, pleaded on information and belief and supported by plaintiff declarations that were not inspected (they are quoted in the complaint and the order). Meta disputes them (claim c4). The news reports and the court order restate the complaint and are one reporting chain with it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers for individualized human review. Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On information and belief, Meta did not neutralize any of the foregoing inputs for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs are twenty-six current and former Meta employees, each of whom Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"selected for separation in the RIF, and each of whom","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the inputs to these systems cannot be accumulated by an employee on protected medical, family or parental leave, that Meta did not neutralise them for protected leave, and that employees who took protected leave were therefore disproportionately selected for layoff. It states that each plaintiff was selected for separation in the reduction in force and had, within the 24 months before it, taken, requested or been approved for protected leave, or requested or received a disability accommodation.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of the plaintiffs. The court found on 17 July 2026 only serious questions going to the merits and no likelihood of success on that record (claim c5). Whether any AI system affected any plaintiff’s selection is unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"selection decisions in the RIF were “made by human","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"promotion history over a defined period. There was no AI-","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was selected based on leave status, disability, or any other protected characteristic,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“selection decision [was] made by ‘AI.’” Id. ¶ 11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Selection decisions were made by human business leaders","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"defined period. There was no AI-assisted “scoring” or “ranking” related to employee","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"guidance does not permit AI adoption and usage metrics to be used as negative factors in","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"performance reviews in 2025 or as selection criteria in the RIF.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Meta denies the allegations. A Meta spokesperson said workforce management and organisational decisions were made by people, not AI. In declarations filed by a Meta human-resources director, Meta states that selection decisions were made by human business leaders using documented neutral criteria, that no AI-assisted scoring or ranking of employee performance was used, that no plaintiff was selected on the basis of leave status or disability, and that no selection decision was made by AI.","causal_attribution":"Meta’s statements and declarations about its own process. They are a party account and had been tested only through briefing and court hearings (claims c5 and c7), not in discovery."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"described below, the TRO is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, but rather a “serious question[]”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of health care, employment, protected leave, and unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of immigration status is different. Four of the plaintiffs have employment-based,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"they were not in the rooms where it happened.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 17 July 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order records that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs, finds serious questions going to the merits but no shown likelihood of success on that record, finds that loss of health care, employment, protected leave and unvested equity can be remedied in arbitration, and treats the possible loss of immigration status for four plaintiffs with Meta-sponsored visas as a potentially irreparable harm that needed more information.","causal_attribution":"A court order establishes what the court ruled and recorded. It does not establish that AI was or was not used in the selection."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying the selected employees by email, beginning with","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"finalized on or about July 22, 2026 (and on or about August 20, 2026 for New York","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"laid off on May 20, 2026.” Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 45 (the “mass reduction in force”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Meta began notifying employees selected in the reduction in force on 20 May 2026 (about 8,000 employees, roughly 10 percent of its workforce). The complaint says the plaintiffs were notified of their selection from that date, and that separations were scheduled for about 22 July 2026 (later for some plaintiffs). Meta said in court filings that laid-off workers stayed on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on 20 May.","causal_attribution":"The notification date and the scheduled separation dates come from the complaint and Meta court filings as relayed by Reuters. The sources inspected do not report whether each separation took place on its scheduled date, although Courthouse News called the plaintiffs former employees on 24 August 2026."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction conducted via videoconference. The Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"summarizes tentative. Argument of counsel heard. Motion taken under submission; written order","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on 24 August 2026, heard argument and took the motion under submission with a written order to follow. Courthouse News reports that the judge said the record at that time did not persuade the judge of the merits, that the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and that the case turns on whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened.","causal_attribution":"The minute entry documents that the hearing occurred and the motion was taken under submission. The judge’s remarks are reported by one news outlet and the transcript was not inspected. No written ruling on the preliminary injunction was found as of 29 September 2026."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"and only Plaintiff Doe 20, hereby voluntarily dismisses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"remain parties and continue to prosecute this action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"Doe 20 was voluntarily dismissed from this action on August 3, 2026 pursuant to Federal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"is made on behalf of Doe 20, and no relief is sought on Doe 20’s behalf.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"One plaintiff (Doe 20) voluntarily dismissed all of that plaintiff’s claims without prejudice on 3 August 2026 (Dkt. 33), and the notice states that Does 1 through 19 and 21 through 26 remain parties. No reason is given in the notice.","causal_attribution":"A filing by the plaintiffs’ counsel records the dismissal. It does not say whether that plaintiff was selected in the reduction in force or why the dismissal was made."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They recognize that their claims must be arbitrated, and they have initiated arbitration proceedings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Here, they seek a temporary restraining order:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"while they pursue their claims in private arbitration","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"from this Court only the status-quo-preserving provisional relief that Meta’s own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"G. Reserve to the arbitral forum all relief on the merits, including but not limited to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The 17 July 2026 order records that the plaintiffs recognize their claims must be arbitrated and that they have initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The complaint says the plaintiffs seek from the court only status-quo-preserving provisional relief pending an independent audit of the selection process and arbitration of the merits, and it reserves merits relief such as reinstatement, back pay and damages to the arbitral forum.","causal_attribution":"The order records the plaintiffs’ own statement about their arbitration filings. The arbitration itself is confidential and its progress is unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"Employees on or after protected leave allegedly disproportionately selected for layoff by an AI-assisted process that did not account for leave (disputed by Meta)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Plaintiffs notified of selection for termination on 20 May 2026, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and possible loss of health coverage, unvested equity and (for four plaintiffs) work-visa status","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.42.1_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.46.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.49.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-meta-workers-sue-ai-aided-layoffs-medical-family-leave/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/17/us-judge-wont-block-meta-from-laying-off-workers-w/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"reuters-tro-coverage"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-workers-claiming-ai-fired-them-unlikely-to-see-relief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"courthouse-news-hearing"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","health"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system scored, ranked or selected any plaintiff is unresolved. The complaint pleads it on information and belief. Meta denies it in declarations. No discovery had occurred in the sources inspected, and the judge said on 17 July 2026 that plaintiffs were not in the rooms where the selections happened.","The sources inspected do not show how many people beyond the plaintiffs were selected because of leave, or how many of the roughly 8,000 laid-off employees were scored by any AI-assisted system. Only the plaintiffs are counted as reported harmed.","The order on the preliminary injunction motion (argued 24 August 2026, taken under submission) had not been found by 29 September 2026. The hearing remarks were read only through one news report and the transcript was not inspected.","Whether each plaintiff’s separation took place on its scheduled date (22 July 2026 for most, later for some) is not stated in the sources inspected. Reuters and CBS/AP describe the plaintiffs as still employed in July, and Courthouse News called them former employees on 24 August 2026.","One plaintiff (Doe 20) was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 and no reason is stated. The affected count therefore uses 25.","The complaint and declarations contain individual medical, pregnancy and immigration details. They are anonymised in the public copies and are deliberately not described here.","Reuters and WSJ pages for the initial filing could not be read (HTTP 401). Reuters coverage of the 17 July ruling was read through a Spokesman-Review copy. The Law.com article was behind a subscription wall and was not cited.","The complaint alleges that data captured by a separate Meta employee-monitoring program (the Model Capability Initiative) supplied inputs to the selection process, and Meta denies that AI was used in the selection. That program’s own privacy and security consequences are a different event, recorded as 2026-meta-mci-us-employee-keystroke-and-screen-capture-for-ai-training-then-internal-data-exposure, and are not part of this record."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the plaintiffs worked in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Florida and the suit is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta also notified employees in other countries in the same reduction in force, but no plaintiff outside the US is described.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint, the court order denying the temporary restraining order, two Meta declarations, the plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of one plaintiff and the hearing minute entry were read from the court record (CourtListener copies), with CBS/AP, Reuters and Courthouse News reports. Every AI-related statement is attributed. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the record and are not described individually. Meta denies that AI made or informed any selection decision and the court has not resolved the dispute.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (Metamate, second-brain agents, activity-monitoring scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards, algorithmic ranking and calibration) to score, rank and select employees for the 20 May 2026 termination list. Meta’s declarations say selection decisions were made by human business leaders and that there was no AI-assisted scoring or ranking related to employee performance, and the court described the declarations as saying Meta did not use AI in any way with respect to the RIF. The court recorded that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs and found on 17 July 2026 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the current record. On 24 August 2026 the judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial. No discovery had tested Meta’s account in the sources inspected.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions","summary":"On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.","incidentDate":"2026-05-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-14","aiSystem":"Meta internal AI-assisted systems alleged in the complaint: the Metamate internal LLM assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and activity-monitoring productivity scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and AI-assisted performance calibration (Meta denies AI was used in selecting employees for the layoff)","aiProduct":"Meta internal AI systems (reported)","aiCompany":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that 26 employees were selected for termination in Meta’s May 2026 reduction in force through an AI-assisted process that penalised protected leave, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and asserted losses of employer-subsidised health coverage, unvested equity and, for four plaintiffs, work-visa status. Meta denies that AI was used in the selections. The court found the alleged harms other than immigration status remediable in arbitration and has not decided the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint states that each of 26 plaintiffs was selected for separation in the May 2026 reduction in force. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 without a stated reason, so 25 active plaintiffs are counted as a documented minimum. The roughly 8,000 other employees notified in the reduction in force are not counted because no source ties their selection to the alleged AI process.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Complaint, Does 1 through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 13 Jul 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:06.345461+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.733761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]}]}