{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-22T09:22:34.644Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"job-application","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"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-job-applicant-says-ai-interviewer-for-online-tutoring-company-kept-interrupting-so-they-abandoned-interview-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Monday I had an interview with an online tutoring company ... Then I show up for the interview and get instructions there that the interview would be conducted by an AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says a first-round job interview with an online tutoring company, attended by appointment, turned out to be conducted by an AI.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"AI KEPT INTERRUPTING ME LIKE AT LEAST THREE TIMES FOR EVERY QUESTION IT ASKED. I thought maybe I wasn't speaking loud enough so I got to the point that I was yelling at my computer.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the AI interrupted them at least three times for every question it asked, and that they ended up yelling at the computer in case they were not speaking loudly enough.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of the AI's behaviour; no recording or screenshot is attached."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They said it would only take eight to ten minutes, but the max time allowed was twenty minutes. By minute thirteen I had only answered a handful of questions and the AI kept interrupting me.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the interview was billed at eight to ten minutes with a 20-minute maximum, and that by minute 13 they had answered only a handful of questions while the AI kept interrupting.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"closed the tab and sent an email to the contact of the company telling her where she could put her AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they closed the tab and sent the company contact an angry email objecting to the AI.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; no reply from the company is reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"applicant says the AI interviewer's interruptions left them yelling at the computer and angry (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"applicant abandoned the job interview after 13 minutes (poster's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1xbvjvk/ai_interviewing/","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 from Reddit's public RSS feeds (r/recruitinghell new-posts feed and the post's comments feed, HTTP 200); reddit.com JSON pages and the arctic_shift archive returned HTTP 403 and 500 to the fetcher. No translation and no human reviewer. The poster's username is not recorded. Original post, 18:40 UTC 21 Oct 2026; post and comments feed read about 03:12 UTC 22 Oct.","independence_group":"reddit-recruitinghell-ai-interviewer-applicant"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Which company and which interview tool were involved.","Whether the interruptions came from the AI system's turn-taking or from the poster's audio set-up.","Whether the company replied to the poster's email or considered the application further.","The exact day of the interview, which the post places in the week of 19 October 2026 without fixing it."],"geography":{"basis":"The post does not say where the poster or the tutoring company is located, and the interview was held online.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI interviewer, used by an employer for a first-round job interview, repeatedly interrupting an applicant who then abandoned the interview. The account is attributed and uncorroborated, and the company and tool are not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says the company's instructions stated that the interview would be conducted by an AI, and describes the AI asking questions and repeatedly interrupting the poster's answers. The poster connects those interruptions to answering only a few questions in 13 minutes, yelling at the computer and abandoning the interview. The tool is not named and no recording is attached.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"First-person post: job applicant says an AI interviewer for an online tutoring company kept interrupting their answers, so they quit the interview","summary":"In a Reddit post on 21 October 2026, a job applicant writes that a first-round interview for an online tutoring company, attended by appointment, turned out to be conducted by an AI. The poster says the AI interrupted them at least three times for every question it asked, that they ended up yelling at the computer in case they were not speaking loudly enough, and that after 13 minutes of an interview billed at eight to ten minutes they had answered only a handful of questions. The poster says they closed the tab and sent the company contact an angry email. The company, the interview tool and any reply from the company are not named or reported. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-21","aiSystem":"An AI interviewer that, by the poster's account, an online tutoring company used to conduct a first-round job interview by computer, asking questions and interrupting the applicant's answers","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI job-interview tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says an AI interviewer kept interrupting their answers in a first-round job interview, leaving them yelling at the computer and angry enough to abandon the interview (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster, who was interviewed by the AI system. No other applicant is described.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/1xbvjvk/ai_interviewing/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit post by the applicant, 21 Oct 2026: AI interviewer kept interrupting, so the applicant quit","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:16:29.76591+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:16:29.76591+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","job-application","ai-interviewer"]},{"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"]}]}