Discrimination Lawsuit Against Workday’s Job Screening AI Gets Bigger
A significant legal case is unfolding against Workday, a prominent human resources software company, as its AI-based hiring tools face allegations of discrimination. The lawsuit, recently approved as a collective action, centers on claims that Workday’s algorithms systematically discriminate against job applicants, particularly those over the age of 40.
The Original Lawsuit
Derek Mobley, a Morehouse College graduate with nearly a decade of experience in financial, IT, and customer service work, initiated the lawsuit against Workday in 2023. Mobley, a Black man over the age of 40 who self-identifies as having anxiety and depression, claims that Workday’s AI screening technology led to his rejection from more than 100 job applications over a seven-year period because of his age, race, and disabilities.
After filing his claim in a California federal court, Workday attempted to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it wasn’t the employer making the hiring decisions. However, after over a year of procedural challenges, a California federal judge allowed Mobley’s lawsuit to continue in July 2024.
Expansion to Collective Action
The case has now expanded significantly. Four additional plaintiffs—all over the age of 40—have joined the lawsuit with age discrimination allegations. In February, Mobley sought permission to expand his age discrimination claim to a national action, potentially allowing millions of other applicants over the age of 40 to join the lawsuit.
On Friday, May 24, 2025, Judge Rita Lin of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the case can move forward as a collective action lawsuit. The judge found that the allegations cleared the legal bar to proceed collectively, noting that the case centers on a common question: “Whether Workday’s AI recommendation system has a disparate impact on applicants over forty.” Judge Lin observed that the plaintiffs’ claims will “rise and fall together.”
The Plaintiffs’ Claims
The plaintiffs collectively claim they have submitted hundreds of job applications through Workday’s platform and were rejected each time. One plaintiff, Jill Hughes, reported receiving automated rejections for hundreds of submitted job applications, “often received within a few hours of applying or at odd times outside of business hours,” according to court documents.
All of the plaintiffs are over the age of 40, and they allege systematic discrimination by Workday’s AI tools. The timing of the rejections—sometimes within minutes or hours of application submission—has raised suspicions about automated discrimination rather than human review.
Workday’s AI Hiring Tools
Thousands of companies use Workday’s AI-based applicant screening tools, which include personality and cognitive tests. One program that Workday offers is called HiredScore AI, which the company claims provides “unbiased, AI-driven analysis” to help recruiters quickly sort through candidates.
These tools interpret candidates’ qualifications through advanced algorithmic methods and can automatically reject applicants or advance them in the hiring process. The lawsuit challenges Workday’s claim of unbiased analysis, suggesting instead that the algorithms have built-in discriminatory elements.
Workday’s Response
Workday has denied the allegations in statements provided to multiple outlets. “We continue to believe this case is without merit,” the company stated. However, the court’s decision to allow the case to proceed as a collective action represents a significant development that Workday will need to address.
Potential Impact
This lawsuit could potentially set a precedent for how companies can use automated hiring systems. As businesses increasingly adopt AI technology for hiring processes, this case raises important questions about algorithmic bias and discrimination in employment practices.
The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the HR technology industry and for employers who rely on AI-powered tools to streamline their hiring processes. It may also lead to increased scrutiny and regulation of AI systems used in employment decisions.
Legal Implications and Industry Ramifications
The expansion of the lawsuit to a collective action underscores the growing legal scrutiny of AI-driven hiring tools. Legal experts suggest that this case could set a precedent for how courts evaluate algorithmic bias in employment practices. The central issue revolves around whether Workday’s AI systems, particularly HiredScore AI, disproportionately disadvantage certain groups of applicants, such as older workers, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.
HiredScore AI and Algorithmic Bias
HiredScore AI, a key component of Workday’s hiring platform, uses machine learning algorithms to assess candidates based on resumes, cover letters, and personality tests. While Workday markets HiredScore AI as a tool to reduce bias by standardizing the evaluation process, plaintiffs argue that the system’s reliance on historical data may perpetuate existing biases. For instance, if the algorithm is trained on data reflecting age-related disparities in hiring, it could unintentionally—or intentionally—discriminate against older applicants.
One of the plaintiffs, Jill Hughes, highlighted her frustration with the system, stating that she received automated rejections “at odd hours,” suggesting that human recruiters were not involved in the decision-making process. This raises questions about the transparency and accountability of AI-driven hiring systems.
Plaintiffs’ Struggles and Systemic Issues
Derek Mobley, the original plaintiff, has been vocal about his experiences, describing the emotional toll of being repeatedly rejected by automated systems. “It’s demoralizing to know that your qualifications are being dismissed by a machine without any human consideration,” he said in a court filing. Mobley’s case highlights the broader issue of systemic discrimination in tech-driven hiring processes.
The collective action now includes four additional plaintiffs, all of whom share similar stories of automated rejections. Their experiences suggest a pattern of systemic discrimination that could affect millions of job seekers over the age of 40. The plaintiffs argue that Workday’s AI tools fail to account for the unique qualities and experiences that older workers bring to the table.
Broader Industry Impact
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the HR technology industry. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could lead to stricter regulations on the use of AI in hiring processes. Companies like Workday may be required to implement additional safeguards to ensure that their algorithms are free from bias and that hiring decisions are transparent and fair.
Moreover, this case could encourage other plaintiffs to come forward with similar claims against other HR tech providers. As AI becomes more prevalent in hiring, the need for accountability and transparency in these systems will only grow. The collective action against Workday serves as a wake-up call for the industry to address these issues proactively.
Conclusion
The expansion of the discrimination lawsuit against Workday’s AI hiring tools into a collective action marks a significant milestone in the legal and ethical scrutiny of AI-driven employment practices. The case raises critical questions about algorithmic bias, transparency, and accountability in automated hiring systems. As the lawsuit progresses, it could set a precedent for how companies use AI in hiring, potentially leading to stricter regulations and a push for more equitable employment practices.
For job seekers, particularly those over 40, this case highlights the challenges posed by AI systems that may inadvertently or intentionally discriminate. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the HR technology industry, encouraging greater transparency and fairness in hiring processes.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the current status of the lawsuit against Workday?
The lawsuit has been approved as a collective action, allowing potentially millions of applicants over the age of 40 to join. The case is ongoing, with the court ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims will “rise and fall together.”
How does Workday’s HiredScore AI work?
HiredScore AI uses machine learning algorithms to assess candidates based on resumes, cover letters, and personality tests. While Workday claims it provides unbiased analysis, plaintiffs argue that the system may perpetuate biases present in its training data.
What is Workday’s response to the allegations?
Workday denies the allegations, stating that the case is “without merit.” However, the company will need to address the claims as the collective action moves forward.
What could be the broader impact of this lawsuit?
The outcome could lead to stricter regulations on AI in hiring, increased transparency in automated systems, and a shift in how HR technology companies develop and deploy their tools.
What does this mean for older job seekers?
The lawsuit highlights concerns about age discrimination in AI-driven hiring processes. A favorable ruling for the plaintiffs could lead to more equitable opportunities for older workers and greater accountability for companies using AI tools.