Lawsuit Targets Workday AI for Age Bias
A federal court in California has authorized notice to potential class members in a lawsuit against Workday, Inc. The collective action, *Mobley v. Workday, Inc.*, alleges that the company's AI-powered hiring software results in age discrimination against job applicants. Potential class members have until March 7, 2026, to act.
- The plaintiff, Derek Mobley, alleges he was rejected from over 100 jobs after applying through Workday's platform. He claims these rejections often happened within minutes or hours of applying, including overnight, suggesting automated screening was responsible. - The lawsuit was initially filed on February 21, 2023, and also includes allegations of discrimination based on race and disability, not just age. Mobley is an African American man over the age of 40 who has anxiety and depression. - A key legal argument is that Workday acts as an "agent" of the employers using its software, and therefore can be held liable for discriminatory outcomes even though it is a third-party vendor. Workday's defense is that its customers, the employers, are solely responsible for hiring decisions. - In May 2025, a federal judge in the Northern District of California granted conditional certification for the age discrimination claim to proceed as a collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). This allows other applicants over the age of 40 who were screened by Workday's AI since September 24, 2020, to join the suit. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken an interest in the case, filing an amicus brief that supports the idea that Workday can be held liable as an agent of the employers using its software. - This is considered a landmark case as it is one of the first to directly address AI-driven discrimination in hiring and could set a precedent for the liability of software vendors in the hiring process. - The lawsuit alleges that the AI tools rely on biased training data and that specific "Workday branded assessment and/or personality tests" function as unlawful disability-related inquiries. - While the court allowed the disparate impact claims to move forward, it dismissed claims of intentional discrimination, though it left open the possibility for the plaintiff to amend the complaint if evidence of discriminatory intent is found during discovery.
