Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective

Derek Mobley sued Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other job applicants on the basis of race, age and disability. According to the court's summary of the complaint, Mobley alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one, in one instance less than an hour after applying at 12:55 a.m. On 12 July 2024 the court dismissed the claims of intentional discrimination and allowed the disparate-impact claims to proceed. On 16 May 2025 it granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, by which time four further plaintiffs over forty had joined. The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs had asked the court to certify a class action and that a hearing is set for 9 March 2027. Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected. No court has ruled on whether the tools discriminated.

AI system
Workday applicant screening tools
Workday
Occurred
2017
Reported
Unknown
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Made a decision about the person
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
8 claims: 3 documented, 5 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 5 people

AI system as recorded: Workday's applicant screening tools on its job-application platform, which the court's orders describe from the complaint as 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools' (2024) and an AI-based 'applicant recommendation system' (2025). The plaintiffs allege the tools score, sort, rank or screen applicants. Workday says its AI tools evaluate job qualifications and that its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected (as relayed from Reuters). The 2025 order names two tools discussed in the certification briefing: Candidate Skills Match, which Workday said in discovery 'utilizes artificial intelligence' to compare a job posting with an application within its Workday Recruiting service and which customers can turn on or off, and Workday Assessment Connector, which is alleged to use machine learning

What Happened

The lawsuit. The court's order of 12 July 2024 opens: 'Derek Mobley brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc., alleging that Workday's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other similarly situated job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability.' The Black Information Network reports that the suit was filed in February 2023.

What the plaintiff alleges. The order recites the complaint: 'Mobley has allegedly applied to over 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools for talent acquisition and hiring since 2017', and 'Mobley was allegedly denied employment for every one of the 100-plus applications that he submitted to companies using Workday's platform.' On one occasion he applied at 12:55 a.m. and 'his application was rejected less than an hour later.' The complaint says the tools embed AI and machine learning and 'determine whether an employer should accept or reject an application'. These are allegations recited on a motion to dismiss. They are not findings.

The 2024 ruling. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It held that 'The motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA is therefore denied' and dismissed the claims that Workday 'intentionally discriminated against him based on race and age.'

The 2025 ruling. The order of 16 May 2025 states that 'Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty, who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview'. The court granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, a step that allows notice to other applicants and can be revisited after discovery.

September 2026. The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reports that 'the plaintiffs filed their class-certification request on September 14 in federal court in San Francisco' and that 'A hearing on whether the case can proceed as a class action is scheduled for March 9, 2027.'

Workday's position. By the same report, 'Workday has denied wrongdoing, saying its AI tools evaluate job qualifications rather than protected characteristics', and the company argues that 'its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed, and rejected'.

Limits. The complaint, the 2026 class-certification motion and the Reuters article were not read. The record inspected does not show which employers were involved in each rejection or whether a person or an automated tool made each decision.

Reported harm

The named plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications made since 2017 to companies using Workday's screening tools and that the tools discriminated by race, age and disability. Four further plaintiffs over forty allege repeated rejections without an interview. Workday denies wrongdoing, and no court has ruled on the merits.

Outcome

Ongoing

12 July 2024: motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part (disparate-impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA proceed; intentional-discrimination claims dismissed). 16 May 2025: preliminary certification of an ADEA collective granted. September 2026: plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class action, with a hearing reported for 9 March 2027. No ruling on the merits.

What remains unknown

  • Whether Workday's tools, the employers' own settings or human reviewers produced each rejection.
  • Which employers were involved beyond those named in the order, and the dates of the individual applications.
  • The contents of the September 2026 class-certification motion and of the Reuters article, neither of which was read.
  • The outcome of the case on the merits.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The plaintiffs allege that Workday's AI-based screening and recommendation tools decided or recommended the rejection of their applications. The court's orders recite those allegations and found the disparate-impact claims plausibly pleaded. The 2025 order quotes Workday's discovery statement that its Candidate Skills Match tool 'utilizes artificial intelligence' and that customers choose whether to turn it on. Workday says its tools evaluate qualifications and that its customers control rejections. Whether an automated tool made any particular rejection is not established.

8 claims: 3 documented, 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented A job applicant brought an employment discrimination action against Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that its algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other applicants on the basis of race, age and disability.

Causal attribution. The order establishes that the action exists and what it alleges. It does not establish that the allegations are true.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Page 1: 'brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc.'; 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other similarly situated job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability'
Reported The plaintiff alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one.

Causal attribution. Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court on a motion to dismiss. It is not a finding.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Pages 2-3: 'Mobley has allegedly applied to over 100 positions with companies that use Workday'; 'screening tools for talent acquisition and hiring since 2017'; 'Mobley was allegedly denied employment for every one of the'
Reported The plaintiff alleges that one application, submitted at 12:55 a.m., was rejected less than an hour later.

Causal attribution. Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. The plaintiffs argue that the timing indicates automated screening, and no finding has been made.

Reported The plaintiff alleges that Workday's tools embed AI and machine learning and determine whether an employer should accept or reject an application.

Causal attribution. Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. Workday disputes that its tools make hiring decisions.

Documented On 12 July 2024 the court granted Workday's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: the disparate-impact claims proceed and the claims of intentional discrimination were dismissed.

Causal attribution. The court's own ruling on the pleadings. It decides whether the claims may proceed and makes no finding of discrimination.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the'; 'ADA is therefore denied'; 'intentionally discriminated against him based on race and age'; 'Document 80 Filed 07/12/24'
Documented On 16 May 2025 the court granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, and four other plaintiffs over forty had joined the named plaintiff.

Causal attribution. The court's own procedural ruling, which the order says can be revisited after discovery. It makes no finding of discrimination.

  • storage.courtlistener.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Page 1: 'motion for preliminary certification of the collective is GRANTED'; 'Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; 'Document 128'
Reported The four further plaintiffs allege that they applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and were rejected almost every time without an interview.

Causal attribution. The plaintiffs' allegations as recited by the court. They attribute the rejections to age discrimination in the recommendation system, which is not established.

Reported The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs filed a class-certification request on 14 September, that Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected, and that a hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2027.

Causal attribution. A relay of Reuters reporting. The motion and the Reuters article were not read.

  • binnews.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'the plaintiffs filed their class-certification request on September 14 in federal court in San Francisco'; 'Workday has denied wrongdoing, saying its AI tools evaluate job qualifications rather than protected characteristics'; 'its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed, and rejected'; 'A hearing on whether the case can proceed as a class action is scheduled for March 9, 2027'

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English: the 20-page order of 12 July 2024 as text extracted from the PDF. Applies to s1.

Read in English: the 20-page order of 16 May 2025 as text extracted from the PDF. Applies to s2.

Read in English. The article attributes its account to Reuters, whose article was not read. Applies to s3.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: United States.

The case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and the 2025 order describes the proposed group as a 'nationwide collective' under US federal employment statutes, which places the applications in the United States. The plaintiffs' places of residence were not read in the passages inspected.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-05: Published as a concrete, court-documented allegation that an AI applicant-screening system repeatedly rejected a named job applicant. The existence of the suit and two rulings are established by the court's orders. The rejections and the role of the tools are the plaintiffs' allegations, which Workday denies and no court has decided.

People described

A job applicant over forty who is African American and has a disability (the named plaintiff), and four further plaintiffs over forty who joined the suit

People reported harmed in this case

At least 5 people

0 AI participants · 5 other people harmed

Five plaintiffs who allege rejections: the named plaintiff and the four opt-in plaintiffs whose declarations the court's 16 May 2025 order describes ('four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; each 'alleges that they received at least one "automated" rejection email'). People who may opt in to the collective are not counted. The count records people who report harm and does not establish that the tools caused it.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#hiring#applicant-screening#workday#employment-discrimination#age-discrimination#lawsuit

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit

BibTeX

@misc{2017_mobley_v_workday_ai_applicant_screening_job_rejections_discrimination_lawsuit,
  title = {Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit}
}

Related cases

Medium Meta internal AI systems (reported)

US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions

On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.

Medium Pangram AI-text detector

US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI

On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that "my name is ruined" and "my mental health is at an all time low", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.

Low Eightfold Match Score

US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring

Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).

High Unidentified facial recognition system

Jacksonville, Florida: a 38-year-old father was arrested at work in May 2025 and charged with soliciting a child after sheriff's investigators identified him, he says with facial-recognition tools, from photos an impostor had sent to an undercover officer; charges were dropped in August 2025 after the real sender confessed, and the family says the ordeal cost $45,000

The Florida Trib (28 September 2026, republished by the Florida Phoenix) reports that in May 2025, during the multi-agency sting Operation Rescue Our Children, a man using the Skout dating app sent an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl two photos of someone else: a former friend, a supermarket assistant manager and father of two whom the Trib calls 'Nick'. Investigators told him they relied on facial-recognition tools to identify him in the pictures, he recalled, and the Trib found no indication in court documents of other investigative work before his arrest. He was handcuffed at work, charged with soliciting a child via computer and unlawful use of a two-way communications device, spent a night in jail, wore an ankle monitor, was barred from contact with his two young children for a month and a half and could not live at home for nearly three months. The account's owner, a man with a prior conviction for the same offence, admitted on 31 July 2025 using the photos; charges against the father were dropped the next day and a judge ordered the case expunged on 4 August 2025, though the records stayed publicly online for more than a year. The family says the ordeal cost $45,000 in lost wages and legal fees and traumatised the children. The sheriff's office did not respond to the Trib's questions.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents