{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-11T09:43:52.512Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"discrimination","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-new-jersey-remote-worker-dismissed-after-seeking-exemption-from-ai-webcam-monitoring","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'her former employer, Sutherland Healthcare Solutions in Clifton, let her go in early September for being unwilling to submit to the AI software monitoring, known as Sentinel AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee alleges that Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, ended her employment in early September 2026 for being unwilling to submit to AI monitoring software known as Sentinel AI.","causal_attribution":"The employee's allegation in her lawsuit, as reported. The employer did not respond."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it would start using AI to take still images of her via the webcam on her work laptop'; 'would use AI and facial recognition software to make sure'; 'taking 160 images during an eight-hour work shift, or one image every three minutes, the suit says'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the suit, the employer said it would use AI to take still images of the employee through her work laptop's webcam, using facial recognition to confirm she was the person at the desk, at 160 images in an eight-hour shift.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's description of the employer's planned monitoring, as reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'notified her employer in writing that she was worried about the AI seeing the inside of her home, and whether the data would be securely stored, the complaint says'; 'the proposed monitoring had significantly increased\" her anxiety and stress'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, and told the employer the proposed monitoring had significantly increased her anxiety and stress.","causal_attribution":"The employee's account in the complaint, as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'asked for an accommodation to be exempt from the monitoring while working from home, the lawsuit says, but was denied'; 'On Aug. 13, 2026,'; 'was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her request for an accommodation exempting her from the monitoring while working from home was denied, and on 13 August 2026 she was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Management offered to let her avoid the software if she commuted to the office'; 'it would require six hours of travel time'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Management offered to let her avoid the software by commuting to the office, which she rejected because it would require six hours of travel.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'employment was terminated on Sept. 8, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported. The employer has not given its reasons publicly."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'lawsuit filed on Sept. 23 in state Superior Court in Atlantic City'; 'violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting “reasonable accommodations”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawsuit filed on 23 September 2026 in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City alleges that the employer violated the state's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's report of the filing. The filing was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sutherland did not respond to multiple emails seeking comment for this story'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"employment terminated after refusing AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation (alleged)","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"increased anxiety and stress attributed to the monitoring requirement (employee's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full. The www host refused the fetcher, so the identical article was read on the eu.northjersey.com mirror of the same URL path. The complaint itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"northjersey-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","accessibility"],"unknowns":["Whether the monitoring software was ever run on this employee and what it recorded.","The employer's account of the monitoring policy and of the reasons for the dismissal.","The vendor of the Sentinel AI software and how its facial-recognition check works.","The court's response to the lawsuit.","The dates on which the employer announced the monitoring and on which the accommodation request was made and denied."],"geography":{"basis":"The employer is in Clifton, New Jersey, and the report says the employee worked remotely for it from a home in New Jersey, so the dismissal and the home-working arrangement at issue were in the US. The lawsuit was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account of a person's dismissal after objecting to an employer's AI facial-recognition monitoring, reported by a regional newspaper from a filed lawsuit and the employee's attorneys. The account is attributed as allegation throughout, and the employee is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's response to the employee's objection to AI monitoring: according to the complaint as reported, the employer required webcam monitoring that would use AI and facial recognition to confirm her identity at the desk, denied her accommodation request and terminated her employment after she refused it. The report does not say the software ever captured or assessed images of this employee, so no output of the AI system about her is established and the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Lawsuit says a New Jersey employer dismissed a remote worker who sought exemption from AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring","summary":"NorthJersey.com reported on 5 October 2026 that a former remote employee of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, sued the company in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City on 23 September 2026. According to the complaint as reported, the employer told the employee it would start monitoring her through her work laptop's webcam with software called Sentinel AI, which would use AI and facial recognition to confirm that she was the person at the desk, taking 160 still images in an eight-hour shift. The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, said the monitoring had increased her anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition, and asked for a full or partial exemption as a reasonable accommodation. The suit says the request was denied, she was given a 24-hour ultimatum on 13 August 2026 to submit to the monitoring or resign, an offer to avoid the software by commuting to the office was rejected because it would require six hours of travel time, and her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026. The suit alleges that the employer violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations. Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment, and the allegations have not been tested in court.","incidentDate":"2026-08-13","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-05","aiSystem":"Workplace webcam-monitoring software reported as Sentinel AI in NorthJersey.com's account of the employee's lawsuit, which the complaint, as reported, says would use AI and facial recognition to take still images of a remote worker and confirm that she was the person at the desk","aiProduct":"Sentinel AI (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The employee lost a long-held job after refusing an employer's AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation, and says the monitoring requirement increased anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition (allegations in a lawsuit reported by NorthJersey.com; the employer did not comment).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the employee whose employment was terminated. Counted under other people harmed because the AI system was the employer's monitoring tool, not one the employee chose to use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NJ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","primarySourceLabel":"NorthJersey.com (The Record), 5 October 2026: \"NJ employer wanted to use AI to monitor at-home employee, suit says\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["workplace-monitoring","facial-recognition","dismissal","workplace-accommodation","employment-lawsuit","new-jersey","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 3: 'his application was rejected less than an hour later'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'enabling these applications to make hiring decisions'; 'employer should accept or reject an application'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications to companies using Workday's screening tools (plaintiff's allegation)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"four further plaintiffs over forty rejected almost every time without an interview (their allegation, as recited by the court)","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 12 July 2024 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 16 May 2025 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.binnews.com/alternate/amp/2026-09-24-black-job-seekers-allege-workdays-ai-hiring-tools-discriminate-seek-class-action/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. The article attributes its account to Reuters, whose article was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-workday-class-certification-2026-09"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"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","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2017-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Workday applicant screening tools","aiCompany":"Workday","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, N.D. California, Mobley v. Workday, order granting preliminary collective certification, 16 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","hiring","applicant-screening","workday","employment-discrimination","age-discrimination","lawsuit","institutional-use"]}]}