AI Layoff Claims: When the Algorithm Picked Who Got Fired

David H. Tracey
David H. Tracey
Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP

David H. Tracey practice concentrates on discrimination and retaliation, wage and hour, civil rights, and employee benefits matters, representing individuals and classes in cases that run from complaint through appeal.

Carolin Guentert
Carolin Guentert
Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP

Carolin Guentert practice concentrates on discrimination and harassment litigation and Title IX and victims’ rights matters, representing both individuals and classes in employment cases across the legal, financial services, tech, and consumer goods industries.

Live Video-Broadcast: September 25, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

A machine picked the layoff list. The law still holds someone accountable.

Employers increasingly rely on AI and algorithmic scoring systems to decide who gets laid off. A wave of recent litigation, led by the high-profile 2026 lawsuit against Meta, has forced practitioners to respond. Longstanding federal and state discrimination laws must now be applied when a machine, rather than a manager, makes the call.

The pleading stakes are immediate. Fail to name the specific AI system and its data inputs and Iqbal/Twombly can end the case. Overlook NYC Local Law 144, California’s October 2025 AI regulations, or Colorado’s SB 24-205 and you surrender pleading support. Let a vendor shield bias-testing data behind privilege and the proof never arrives. Lose your data-science expert under Daubert and the disparate-impact claim collapses with it.

You walk out with practitioner work product, not doctrine. Deliverables include a complaint-drafting checklist for algorithmic reduction-in-force cases, a pleading strategy, and a discovery framework targeting AI vendors. Coverage runs from pre-complaint investigation through class certification and trial. That is judgment work no automated summary replaces.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • The Meta Pleading Model
    How the 2026 Meta lawsuit shapes complaint drafting and pre-complaint investigation in algorithmic layoffs.
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    Adapting FMLA, ADA, PDA, PWFA, and Title VII frameworks to algorithmic fact patterns.
  • State and Local Regulations
    Using NYC Local Law 144, California’s October 2025 AI regulations, and Colorado’s SB 24-205.
  • Algorithmic Discovery Targets
    Compelling vendor data and overcoming privilege shields over AI bias-testing materials.
  • Expert Witness Strategy
    Structuring data-science and AI/ML expert teams that survive Daubert scrutiny.
  • Building the Record
    Assembling the evidentiary record needed for class certification and trial.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 25, 2026 

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

David H. Tracey, Firm Managing Partner | Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP

David H. Tracey is the Firm Managing Partner of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP and Co-Chair of the firm’s Public Interest Litigation Practice Group. His practice concentrates on discrimination and retaliation, wage and hour, civil rights, and employee benefits matters, representing individuals and classes in cases that run from complaint through appeal.

  • Education & Credentials

David earned his J.D., magna cum laude and Order of the Coif, from New York University School of Law and his B.A., magna cum laude, from Yale University. He clerked for the Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. He is admitted to the New York and New Jersey bars, the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey.

  • Recognition & Leadership

David was named to The National Law Journal’s Rising Stars of the Plaintiffs Bar in 2024 and the New York Law Journal’s Rising Stars in 2024. New York Super Lawyers selected him as a Top-Rated Employment Litigation attorney in 2025 and 2026 and a Rising Star in 2023 and 2024. He appears on Benchmark Litigation’s 40 and Under list for 2025, Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Civil Rights and Plaintiff Employment Lawyers for 2025 and 2026, and Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch for 2025. As Firm Managing Partner, he leads the firm’s practice across its national offices.

  • Professional Involvement

David co-authored “Employers Should Owe a Duty of Loyalty to Their Workers,” published in the Cardozo Law Review – De Novo in 2020, and an opinion piece on wage theft enforcement in City & State NY in 2023. He has served as amicus counsel before the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Before entering the law, he worked as a community organizer in New York City on tenants’ rights, environmental health, and gun control issues.

  • Experience

David served as class counsel for over 100,000 participants in the Walgreens Retirement Savings Plan, producing a $13.75 million proposed settlement, and litigated discrimination claims for Forest Pharmaceuticals sales representatives that culminated in a $4 million court-approved class settlement. His matters include In re: GE ERISA Litigation, which resulted in a $61 million settlement, a $2.5+ million court-approved consumer class settlement against Starion Energy, and discrimination and retaliation litigation for the former in-house attorney of Zara USA, Inc. He has negotiated individual settlements of $7 million, $4.95 million, and $1 million in discrimination and retaliation matters and has litigated appeals in the Second, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits and the New York State Appellate Division.

 

Carolin Guentert, Co-Managing Partner of the New York Office | Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP

Carolin Guentert is Co-Managing Partner of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight’s New York office and Co-Chair of the firm’s Sexual Violence, Title IX, and Victims’ Rights Practice Group. Her practice concentrates on discrimination and harassment litigation and Title IX and victims’ rights matters, representing both individuals and classes in employment cases across the legal, financial services, tech, and consumer goods industries.

 

  • Education & Credentials

Carolin earned her LL.M., with distinction, from Georgetown University Law Center, her J.D. from New York University School of Law, and her B.A., summa cum laude, from The College of New Jersey. She clerked for the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She was admitted to the New York bar in 2015 and the District of Columbia bar in 2017 and is admitted to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fourth Circuits and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Carolin has been selected to Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch for Labor and Employment Law – Employee and Litigation – Labor and Employment in 2024, 2025, and 2026. New York Super Lawyers named her a Top-Rated Civil Rights attorney in 2026 and a Rising Star in 2023, 2024, and 2025. She appears on Benchmark Litigation’s 40 and Under list for 2023, 2024, and 2025 and Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Civil Rights and Plaintiff Employment Lawyers for 2025 and 2026, and she received the Profiles in Leadership Journal Emerging Leaders Award in 2025.

  • Professional Involvement

Carolin has authored or co-authored articles appearing in the Cardozo Law Review, the Federal Sentencing Reporter, Law360, and the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. She is a member of the Sanctuary for Families Pro Bono Council. Before joining the firm, she was a clinical teaching fellow in Georgetown University Law Center’s Domestic Violence Clinic, where she completed the Women’s Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program. She speaks native German and proficient French.

  • Experience

Carolin has represented three graduate students in Title IX litigation against Harvard University over a near-decade-long pattern of sexual harassment, which settled in 2024, and litigated a proposed pregnancy discrimination class action against Morrison & Foerster LLP on behalf of female attorneys. Her matters include a proposed $100 million nationwide gender discrimination and sexual harassment class action against Schlumberger Technology Corporation, a proposed class action against Yale University and its allmale fraternities, race discrimination litigation for 18 former student pilots at the American Airlines Cadet Academy, and representations involving Colgate University, Teachers College at Columbia University, and a Southwest Airlines pilot alleging in-flight sexual harassment and retaliation.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Pleading Discrimination and Protected-Leave Claims Against Algorithmic Layoffs | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

This session teaches plaintiffs’ employment attorneys how to plead federal and state discrimination and protected-leave claims when an employer used AI or algorithmic scoring to select employees for layoff. Attorneys will learn how to identify and name the specific AI systems and data inputs at issue, adapt FMLA, ADA, PDA, PWFA, and Title VII disparate-impact frameworks to algorithmic fact patterns, and leverage state and local regulations— including NYC Local Law 144, California’s October 2025 AI regulations, and Colorado’s SB 24-205. Attendees will leave with a checklist for complaint drafting in algorithmic reduction-in-force cases and ideas for navigating the pre-complaint investigation process.

BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – Proving the Algorithm Did It: Discovery, Experts, and Emergency Relief | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

This session covers the litigation mechanics of proving algorithmic discrimination in AI-driven layoffs, from targeted discovery of vendor data through expert witness strategy. Attorneys will learn how to identify and overcome privilege shields over AI bias-testing data, structure expert teams to survive Daubert scrutiny, and build the evidentiary record needed for class certification and trial.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars