AI failures · Incorrect automated decision
Workday AI Hiring Screening — Mobley v. Workday Collective Action
Verified Checked against its sources on 8 sources quoted
- Where it happened
- United States
- Organization
- Workday, Inc.
- Date
- February 21, 2023
- Function
- HR Technology
- Where it happened
- Hiring; applicant screening
- System
- Workday AI hiring platform
- Technology
- Machine learning
- Type of failure
- Incorrect automated decision
- Caught by
- The person affected, A court
Summary
A private lawsuit filed in February 2023 alleges that Workday's AI applicant-screening tools disadvantaged applicants on the basis of race, age and disability. In July 2024 the Northern District of California dismissed the intentional-discrimination claims and the employment-agency theory but let disparate-impact claims proceed, holding that Workday was plausibly an agent of its client employers and so could be liable as an employer. The EEOC took part only as amicus (April 2024). The court conditionally certified an age-discrimination collective in May 2025 and in July 2025 confirmed that it covers applicants screened with the HiredScore AI features, for applications from September 24, 2020. In May 2026 a magistrate judge held Workday's bias-testing data privileged because its lawyers curated it to give legal advice, but ordered Workday to produce its own EEO-1 and OFCCP compliance documents as relevant to its knowledge of demographic disparities. On June 22, 2026, the court dismissed one plaintiff's race claim and the claims about Workday's own hiring but let California FEHA claims and an ADA claim proceed; on July 2, 2026, it refused to certify that ruling for interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 14, 2026, with a hearing set for March 9, 2027. As of October 19, 2026, the case is in discovery, with no ruling on the merits.
Consequence
- July 2024: intentional-discrimination claims dismissed; disparate-impact claims allowed to proceed on an agent theory
- May 16, 2025: ADEA collective conditionally certified
- May 2026: Workday's bias-testing data held privileged
- May 2026: Workday ordered to produce its EEO-1 and OFCCP documents
- June 22, 2026: direct-employer claims dismissed; FEHA claims allowed to proceed
Who caught it The person affected, A courtFound outside the organization
Analysis
What could have been done
Error rates, overrides, complaints and drift are monitored, with thresholds that trigger escalation.
The lawsuit alleges the screening tools disadvantaged applicants by race, age and disability; disparate-impact claims survived the motion to dismiss and an age collective was conditionally certified. These are allegations in ongoing litigation.
Oversight of suppliers' AI use
Suppliers' use of AI is disclosed, contracted for and checked.
The court held at the pleading stage that the screening supplier was plausibly an agent of its client employers and so could itself be liable as an employer for the screening outcomes.
What would likely have prevented it
- Before using a supplier's screening tool, obtain the supplier's adverse-impact test results by protected group and run the organization's own adverse-impact analysis on its applicant outcomes.
- Retest a screening feature for disparate impact after each model or configuration change, before it is used on live applicants.
What would likely have caught it earlier
- Monitor selection rates by protected group at each automated screening stage, with a threshold that triggers review of the feature before further use.
Key dates
- February 21, 2023Event
- October 16, 2026Checked against sources
- October 18, 2026Checked against sources
- October 19, 2026Checked against sources
- October 21, 2026Checked against sources
Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: January 19, 2027.
Evidence
Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.
-
Case #: 3:23-cv-00770 Date Filed: 04-09-2024 Brief Type: Amicus
Supports: EEOC role was an amicus brief (April 9, 2024), not an enforcement action
-
Case 3:23-cv-00770-TSH Document 1 Filed 02/21/23
Supports: filing date February 21, 2023
-
In sum, the FAC adequately alleges that Workday is an agent of its client-employers, and thus falls within the definition of an "employer" for purposes of Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA.
Supports: agent-liability holding
the motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Title VII, ADEA, and ADA claims, to the extent they are based on an employment agency theory, and the intentional discrimination claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and Section 1981
Supports: intentional-discrimination and employment-agency claims dismissed; other claims proceed
-
Mobley's claims cleared a second hurdle on May 16, 2025, when the Court granted conditional certification of the ADEA claims.
Supports: ADEA collective conditionally certified May 16, 2025
-
the preliminary collective definition includes individuals who submitted applications from September 24, 2020 to the present
Supports: collective period from September 24, 2020; HiredScore features within scope
-
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of Workday’s bias-testing data, finding that the attorney-client privilege protects the data because Workday’s attorneys curated it and used the results in providing legal advice.
Supports: May 2026 ruling: bias-testing data privileged
However, the Court ordered production of Workday’s EEO-1 and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) documents, finding those documents to be relevant to Workday’s knowledge of potential demographic disparities when utilizing its AI tools.
Supports: May 2026 ruling: EEO-1 and OFCCP documents ordered produced
-
3. The Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Plaintiffs’ direct employer claim(s) about Workday’s own hiring and recruitment is GRANTED
Supports: June 22, 2026: direct-employer claims dismissed
4. The Motion to Dismiss the FEHA claims is otherwise DENIED;
Supports: June 22, 2026: FEHA claims proceed
-
ORDER Signed by Judge Rita F. Lin on 7/2/2026 DENYING 286 MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B).
Supports: July 2, 2026: interlocutory appeal certification denied
MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jill E. Hughes, Sheilah Johnson-Rocha, Derek L. Mobley, Faithlinh Rowe. Motion to Certify Class Hearing set for 3/9/2027 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 15, 18th Floor before Judge Rita F. Lin. Responses due by 11/10/2026.
Supports: September 14, 2026, class certification motion; hearing March 9, 2027
Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “Workday AI Hiring Screening — Mobley v. Workday Collective Action”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 19, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/fail-086/.
Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.
Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.
