A landmark legal case targeting enterprise software giant Workday has brought the issue of fairness in AI-driven hiring practices into sharp focus. The lawsuit, Mobley v. Workday, Inc., alleges that Workday's recruitment tools discriminated against job applicants based on protected characteristics, including age and race. The case, which is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, could have far-reaching implications for the role of artificial intelligence in hiring decisions.
Allegations at the Core of the Case
At the center of the lawsuit is Derek Mobley, a Black man over the age of 40. According to his complaint, Mobley applied for over a hundred positions through employers that used Workday’s hiring tools but was consistently rejected - sometimes within minutes or overnight. Mobley claims this speed of response indicates that his applications were filtered out by Workday’s automated systems rather than by human evaluators, resulting in alleged violations of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Workday has denied these claims, asserting that its platform does not make hiring decisions but merely assists clients in organizing and ranking candidates. Kelly Trindel, Workday’s Chief Responsibility Officer, stated, "Workday AI does not make hiring decisions and is not designed to automatically reject candidates", adding that human oversight is maintained throughout the recruitment process.
Legal and Industry Implications
The case took a significant step forward in early 2025 when a federal judge allowed the age-discrimination claim to proceed as a collective action. This decision enables other individuals who believe they were similarly impacted by Workday’s tools to opt into the lawsuit. The potential class size could number in the tens of millions, drawing comparisons to the largest discrimination cases in U.S. history.
The legal argument raises a pivotal question: can software vendors like Workday be held liable for discriminatory outcomes driven by their algorithms, even though hiring decisions are ultimately made by their clients? Historically, employment-discrimination laws have focused on employers, but this case could redefine liability in the era of AI-driven hiring.
Judge Rita F. Lin, who is presiding over the case, ruled that the lawsuit could move forward, citing the possibility that Workday’s algorithms materially influence hiring outcomes in ways that merit legal examination.
Challenges for HR and the Future of AI in Hiring
Workday’s software is widely used around the globe, powering HR and financial operations for more than 65% of Fortune 500 companies and serving customers in 175 countries. Its AI tools are designed to streamline hiring processes, helping organizations manage high application volumes and identify top candidates more efficiently. In theory, these systems aim to reduce bias and provide consistent candidate evaluations.
However, the lawsuit highlights the risks of relying on automated systems in hiring. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has previously warned that employers remain accountable for discriminatory outcomes caused by AI tools they use. The Mobley case could further complicate matters by extending potential liability to software vendors like Workday.
For HR leaders, the lawsuit underscores the need for caution. Legal experts suggest that companies using Workday’s tools should consider pausing or limiting automated screening for high-risk positions, conducting regular bias audits, and maintaining clear documentation of human oversight in hiring decisions. As Trindel emphasized, "customers maintain human oversight throughout recruitment", but the case raises questions about whether such oversight is sufficient to prevent discriminatory outcomes.
The Bigger Picture
The Mobley v. Workday case is a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over algorithmic fairness and accountability. If courts ultimately find that AI-driven tools constitute employment decision-making, it could expand the compliance obligations for both software providers and the organizations that use their platforms. Such a precedent would likely reverberate across the entire HR technology industry.
Workday’s denial of the allegations and its emphasis on human oversight reflect a broader struggle within the industry to balance innovation with accountability. As regulators, courts, and public opinion increasingly scrutinize AI’s role in hiring, companies are being urged to prioritize transparency and fairness over efficiency.
For now, the case serves as a stark reminder that organizations cannot assume vendor compliance equates to their own. As the legal battle unfolds, both HR leaders and technology providers will be watching closely, knowing that the outcome could reshape the future of AI in hiring.
.png)
