Workday Lawsuit: AI Hiring Discrimination and ADEA Rulings

The Workday AI hiring discrimination lawsuit is a federal case, Mobley v. Workday, Inc., alleging that Workday’s algorithmic screening tools systematically reject job applicants who are over 40, Black, or disabled. Filed in February 2023 in the Northern District of California, the case survived Workday’s motion to dismiss on an “agent” liability theory in July 2024, was certified as a nationwide collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in May 2025, and is now in discovery with no trial date set.¹

What the Lawsuit Alleges

Derek Mobley, an African-American IT professional over 40 who has a disability, was laid off in 2017 and applied to more than 150 positions through Workday’s platform over the following years. He was rejected nearly every time, often by automated emails that arrived in the middle of the night. In one instance, he was rejected without an interview for a role he was already performing as a contractor.²

His complaint, later joined by four additional plaintiffs with similar experiences, alleges discrimination under three federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race), the Americans with Disabilities Act (disability), and the ADEA (age).³ The core theory is disparate impact: that Workday’s AI, which scores and ranks candidates against employer-defined criteria, disproportionately screens out members of protected groups even without any intent to discriminate. Mobley contends the system relies on biased training data or replicates historical hiring patterns that disadvantage those groups.⁴

Workday’s Position

Workday has called the suit “without merit” and denied the allegations. Its central defense is that it is a technology vendor, not an employer, and that its customers control hiring decisions. In its motion to dismiss, Workday argued it has “no control over a customer’s day-to-day operations” and “no ability to force a customer to make decisions in the hiring process.” Employers, the company says, choose which AI features to turn on, off, or ignore, and Workday’s platform does not auto-reject candidates without employer participation.³

The company also says its recruiting AI is not trained on protected characteristics like race, age, or disability and focuses on qualifications, and it points to third-party certification of its AI governance program under NIST and ISO standards.⁵

The Agent Theory Ruling That Kept the Case Alive

On July 12, 2024, Judge Rita Lin issued the ruling that made everything else possible. She granted Workday’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.⁶

The court rejected the argument that Workday qualifies as an “employment agency” under federal law, finding that Workday does not “procure” employees. It also dismissed the intentional-discrimination claims, holding that awareness of adverse consequences is not the same as intent.⁶

But Judge Lin allowed the “agent” theory to proceed. She held that Mobley plausibly alleged Workday’s employer-clients had delegated “their traditional function of rejecting candidates or advancing them to the interview stage” to Workday. The court distinguished Workday’s software from passive tools like spreadsheets or email, finding that it participates in decision-making by recommending which candidates to advance and which to reject. Federal anti-discrimination statutes, she wrote, do not distinguish between delegating hiring functions to an “automated agent” and delegating them to a human one. She also noted a practical concern: without agent liability, an AI vendor could screen out protected groups without the employer even knowing.⁷

Nationwide Collective Action Certification

On May 16, 2025, Judge Lin granted preliminary certification of a nationwide collective action under the ADEA. The collective includes all job applicants aged 40 and older who applied through Workday’s platform on or after September 24, 2020, and were denied “employment recommendations.”⁴

Workday had argued that certification was inappropriate because applicants had different qualifications and employer-clients used the tools in different ways. Judge Lin found those differences “immaterial for certification purposes.” Using Workday’s AI to score, sort, rank, or screen applicants amounted to a “unified policy,” she concluded, even when deployed by different employers across different positions. During the proceedings, Workday disclosed that its platform processed roughly 1.1 billion applications during the relevant period.⁸

The certification is limited to the age claim. The race and disability claims remain in the case but have not been certified as a class or collective.

The March 2026 Ruling on ADEA Coverage

On March 6, 2026, Judge Lin denied a second Workday motion to dismiss, this one arguing that the ADEA does not cover job applicants at all because Congress never explicitly amended the 1967 law to say so. Workday cited en banc decisions from the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits supporting that reading. Judge Lin rejected the argument, writing that “speculating about why a later Congress failed to act is a particularly dangerous basis for interpreting existing law.”⁹

She also rejected Workday’s argument that the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference, undermined the EEOC’s longstanding view that the ADEA covers applicants. Under the Skidmore v. Swift standard, which remains available after Loper Bright, that interpretation is persuasive.¹⁰

The same ruling dismissed certain California state law claims and one plaintiff’s ADA claim for lacking factual detail, with leave to amend by March 27, 2026.¹⁰

Who Can Join and Whether the Opt-In Is Still Open

After the May 2025 certification, the court authorized an opt-in process for the age collective. Eligibility was straightforward: anyone aged 40 or older who applied for a job through Workday’s platform on or after September 24, 2020, and was rejected. Consent-to-join forms were submitted through the official case website at workdaycase.com.¹¹

The opt-in deadline was March 7, 2026.¹² Industry reporting puts the number who opted in at roughly 14,000, though Workday has declined to confirm that figure.⁹ The window to join the ADEA collective has closed. The race and disability claims are proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only and have not been certified for others to join.

Where the Case Stands Now

As of mid-2026, the case is in discovery. No trial date has been set. On May 29, 2026, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler resolved several discovery disputes. She denied Mobley’s request for Workday’s internal bias-testing data, finding it protected by attorney-client privilege because Workday’s lawyers had curated the data for the purpose of legal advice. She also denied a request to compel Workday to produce its customers’ applicant data, finding the company lacks “control” over that information under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She did order Workday to produce its EEO-1 filings and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs documents, finding them relevant to what Workday knew about demographic disparities in the use of its tools.¹³

Workday is expected to seek decertification of the collective at a later stage, arguing that members are not “similarly situated” once discovery produces more detailed evidence about how each employer used the tools.

Why the Case Matters Beyond Workday

Prior AI hiring cases have targeted employers or smaller vendors. This one targets the platform. If the agent-liability theory is validated at trial or on appeal, it would establish that software vendors can be held directly liable under federal civil rights law when their tools function as gatekeepers in the hiring process. Legal analysts have warned that the employers using Workday’s recruiting tools are “likely next in line” for similar claims.¹⁴

The scale of the collective, combined with the 1.1 billion applications Workday processed during the covered period, means the outcome will shape how AI-driven screening is regulated and litigated for years. For now, the case is moving forward, the ADEA claims are certified, and the central legal question is no longer whether an AI vendor can be sued for discrimination but whether Workday’s tools in fact produced the disparate impact the plaintiffs allege.

1
CourtListener. Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770
2
University of Miami Law Review. Help Wanted, Screened by Algorithms: Mobley v. Workday and the Legal Limits of AI Hiring
3
GovInfo. Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL
4
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. AI Hiring Age Discrimination Federal Court Workday
5
Workday Blog. Demystifying AI Hiring: Clarifying How Workday’s Recruiting Tools Work
6
FindLaw. Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-00770-RFL
7
Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Mobley v. Workday: Court Holds AI Service Providers Could Be Directly Liable for Employment Discrimination Under Agent Theory
8
BAM Law. Court Grants Conditional Certification in AI Bias Lawsuit Against Workday
9
Forbes. A Federal Judge, a 1967 Law, and a Billion Rejected Job Applications
10
Yahoo Finance. Workday Takes Partial Loss, Judge Allows AI Discrimination Claims
11
Forbes. Applied for a Job Through Workday? Court-Authorized Opt-In Is Now Open
12
Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb. Workday Case Update
13
Duane Morris LLP. California Federal Court Clarifies Limits on AI Bias Testing and Applicant Data Disclosure in Mobley v. Workday
14
Inside Tech Law. Workday AI Lawsuit Receives the Greenlight to Proceed as a Class Action