[gregjor]

I think people in the business will understand that most of the people laid off lately didn't get axed because of low performance, at least not their own. Massive layoffs and ham-fisted announcements about cutting "low performers" only tell one story: incompetent management, over-hiring, and companies out of ideas or too risk-averse (in terms of "shareholder value").

Zuckerberg has spearheaded the ongoing failure of "the metaverse" wasting billions of dollars, but he can't get fired. Other people pay the price for the low performers on the board, the C-suite, and in management roles. I think we know it always works that way, Meta/Facebook doesn't stand alone, they just stand a bit taller than the rest of the dysfunctional corporations.

Slander and defamation suits would require proof that Meta made false statements about individuals. I don't think that would get anywhere because we don't have any objective reference for "performance," only whatever internal metrics Meta supposedly used. However, wrongfully interfering with someone's employment or employment prospects -- like giving a false or misleading reference -- might have some traction. By announcing this so-called "low performers" cut in the press Meta has labeled everyone subsequently laid off as a "low performer," which may very well interfere with future employment. Even if not malicious it stands out as a very dumb thing to announce or leak, when they could have blamed layoffs on canceled projects or overhiring or restructuring or something vague like that. But no way will Meta management take responsibility, so they have to pretend they have meaningful and objective measures of performance.