April 8 2025
Breaking Alert

Cisco layoffs trigger legal scrutiny after CEO’s assurances on AI and job cuts

post-img

Just days before the layoffs, CEO Chuck Robbins told CNBC that Cisco wouldn’t use AI to cut jobs, emphasizing instead a strategy to boost engineer productivity—unlike rivals like Amazon and Microsoft, which linked cuts to AI adoption

 

 

Cisco Systems is under fire after announcing another round of layoffs, eliminating 157 jobs in California—just days after CEO Chuck Robbins assured the public that artificial intelligence (AI) would not be used to reduce headcount. The affected employees are spread across multiple sites, including the company’s Milpitas campus and San Francisco offices.

The timing of the job cuts has raised eyebrows, prompting legal action from Chicago-based law firm Strauss Borrelli. The firm is investigating whether Cisco violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which mandates a 60-day advance notice for mass layoffs. According to reports, employees were notified on August 13, with their roles set to be officially eliminated by mid-October.

CEO’s AI remarks at odds with job cuts

The layoffs came just days after Robbins appeared on CNBC, stating that Cisco’s strategy was not to use AI to replace workers. “Our goal is to help engineers innovate faster and be more productive,” he said, positioning the company’s approach as distinct from other tech giants like Amazon and Microsoft, which have cited AI advancements as partial justification for workforce reductions.

However, the back-to-back timing of his statement and the layoffs has stirred criticism, especially as this marks Cisco’s third major workforce reduction in the past year. In February 2024, approximately 4,000 employees were let go. A larger cut followed in August 2024, reducing staff by 7%, or roughly 5,600 employees worldwide. The company had previously cited a shift in focus toward growth areas and operational efficiency as reasons for those cuts.

As legal scrutiny mounts, Cisco has yet to publicly address the contrast between its public statements and internal actions.