What is the Workday lawsuit about?
Derek Mobley sued Workday on February 21, 2023, alleging that the company's algorithm-based applicant screening tools, used by employers that run hiring on Workday, rejected him and others because of protected traits. Mobley, who is Black, over 40 and has anxiety and depression, says he applied for more than 100 jobs through Workday-powered systems and got no offers, as a review of the 2026 rulings citing Reuters recounts. Later amendments added three named plaintiffs: Jill Hughes, Sheilah Johnson-Rocha and FaithLinh Rowe.
The case is unusual because of whom it targets. Rather than suing each employer that turned him down, Mobley sued the software vendor, arguing that Workday performs a hiring function on employers' behalf and is liable as their agent. In July 2024, the court accepted that theory at the pleading stage, holding that an employer cannot escape discrimination law by delegating screening to a third party, as Duane Morris summarized the ruling. That decision, reported at 740 F. Supp. 3d 796, is why the case is followed by every company that sells or buys AI screening.
What claims are in the Workday discrimination lawsuit?
All of the claims are disparate impact claims: the plaintiffs say a facially neutral screening system produced worse outcomes for protected groups, without having to prove anyone intended to discriminate. The surviving set has changed with each amended complaint.
Workday age discrimination claims
The age claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is the core of the case and the basis of the nationwide collective. Workday argued in early 2026 that the ADEA's disparate impact provision protects only current employees, not applicants, citing en banc decisions from the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits and the Supreme Court's 2024 Loper Bright decision. On March 6, 2026, Judge Lin rejected that argument and held applicants may bring disparate impact age claims, according to HR Dive.
Other Workday discrimination lawsuit claims
The plaintiffs also plead race and sex discrimination under Title VII, disability discrimination under the ADA and claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. On June 22, 2026, in ECF No. 360, the court let the FEHA claims proceed because Workday allegedly designs and operates its screening tools from its California headquarters, and kept a proxy-discrimination ADA claim, according to Duane Morris's analysis of the order. The court dismissed one plaintiff's newly added Asian American race claim and struck a theory that Workday is liable as a direct employer, because neither was within the leave to amend.
HiredScore scope
Workday bought HiredScore, an AI recruiting company, after the suit was filed and argued that HiredScore was a separate product outside the case. On July 29, 2025, Judge Lin disagreed: the collective covers applicants whose applications were scored, sorted, ranked or screened using HiredScore AI features, and Workday had to produce a list of customers that enabled those features, as Staffing Industry Analysts reported. The judge said differences between the scoring tools could be raised at the decertification stage.
Key rulings in Mobley v. Workday
| Date | Ruling | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 2024 | First motion to dismiss granted with leave to amend | Mobley refiled with more detail |
| July 2024 | Motion to dismiss denied in part | Agent theory of vendor liability accepted |
| May 16, 2025 | ADEA collective conditionally certified | Nationwide age claims proceed together |
| July 29, 2025 | HiredScore order | Collective covers HiredScore AI screening |
| Feb. 2026 | Notice to collective authorized | Opt-in window to March 7, 2026 |
| Mar. 6, 2026 | ADEA applicant coverage upheld | FEHA and one ADA claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| June 22, 2026 | Motion to dismiss Third Amended Complaint mostly denied | FEHA and proxy ADA claims proceed |
May 2025 nationwide collective action ruling
On May 16, 2025, Judge Lin conditionally certified a nationwide collective under the ADEA, covering applicants aged 40 and over who applied through Workday's platform from September 24, 2020 onward and were denied employment recommendations. Workday had represented that 1.1 billion applications were rejected using its tools during the period, and argued the collective could reach hundreds of millions of people; the court said alleged widespread discrimination is not a reason to deny notice, per Proskauer's report on the ruling. Conditional certification is a preliminary step; Workday can still move to decertify after discovery.
June 2026 ruling on California claims
The June 22, 2026 order is the verified version of the California ruling first reported by Law360. Judge Lin heard argument on June 16 and ruled six days later that applying California law to Workday's California-based conduct is not extraterritorial, even for applicants who live elsewhere, relying on the California Supreme Court's Raines v. U.S. Healthworks decision on agent liability. Reuters covered both the ruling and the hearing. A July 1, 2026 order directed a Fourth Amended Complaint implementing the decision.
What the Workday ruling means for employers and job seekers
For employers, the case establishes that buying an AI screening tool does not move discrimination risk onto the vendor. If the vendor can be sued as the employer's agent, the employer remains the principal that delegated the hiring decision, and later suits could name both. Employers using automated screening should be able to explain what each tool scores, test outcomes by age, race, sex and disability, and keep records of human review. California has added a statute on top: Governor Newsom signed SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act, on September 30, 2026, requiring human review of certain automated employment decisions from July 1, 2027, according to Gunderson Dettmer's fall 2026 update.
For job seekers, the rulings so far are procedural. No court has found that Workday's tools discriminated. What the case has done is keep the question alive long enough to force discovery into how the screening works, which is where evidence of disparate impact, or its absence, will come from. Applicants who think an automated rejection was unlawful can file a charge with the EEOC or a state agency within the filing deadlines, which are short. The rights hub has general guidance on challenging automated decisions.
Can you still join the Workday lawsuit?
Not the ADEA collective. The court authorized notice in February 2026, and the deadline to opt in through the official site, workdaycase.com, was March 7, 2026, according to plaintiffs' counsel's announcement. Eligibility covered people aged 40 or older who applied for jobs through Workday's platform since September 24, 2020. Late opt-ins are generally not accepted without a court order.
A second route may open. On September 14, 2026, the plaintiffs moved to certify Rule 23 classes, which work differently from an ADEA collective: if a class is certified, members are included automatically and must opt out to keep a separate claim. The motion is not decided, so no class exists yet, and anyone who thinks they qualify should watch the docket rather than any third-party "sign up" page.
What happens next in the Workday lawsuit?
The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on September 14, 2026, supported by declarations from 38 opt-in plaintiffs. The docket entry for the motion sets the hearing for March 9, 2027 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Lin, with responses due November 10, 2026, as quoted in Eminence Scan's case record; the full docket is on CourtListener. Disputes over Workday's depositions of those declarants were already before the court in October 2026, according to Esquire Deposition Solutions.
After the class ruling, the likely sequence is expert discovery on the screening models, a Workday motion to decertify the ADEA collective, and summary judgment. No settlement talks have been reported, and no trial date has been set. Related cases against other hiring vendors, such as the January 2026 Fair Credit Reporting Act class action against Eightfold AI, test a different theory: that a vendor scoring applicants from third-party data acts as a consumer reporting agency, as an April 2026 case review describes.
Job applicants over 40 who were screened by Workday's AI have a live case but no payout: there is no settlement and no liability finding. The suit is in discovery, and the opt-in deadline for the nationwide age collective closed on March 7, 2026. The next decision point is the class certification hearing on March 9, 2027.
What changed
- 2026-11-09: Page published; class certification hearing confirmed for March 9, 2027.
- 2026-09-14: Plaintiffs moved for Rule 23 class certification (Dkt. 418).
- 2026-07-01: Order directing a Fourth Amended Complaint after the June 22 ruling.
- 2026-06-22: Motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint largely denied; FEHA claims proceed (ECF No. 360).
- 2026-03-07: Opt-in deadline for the ADEA collective closed.
- 2026-03-06: Court held job applicants can bring ADEA disparate impact claims.
- 2025-07-29: Collective extended to applicants screened with HiredScore AI features.
- 2025-05-16: Nationwide ADEA collective conditionally certified.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Workday lawsuit about?
Mobley v. Workday claims that Workday's AI applicant screening tools, used by many employers, rejected job seekers over 40 and other protected groups at higher rates. The plaintiffs argue Workday is liable as the employers' agent. The case is pending in federal court in San Francisco.
Can I join the Workday lawsuit?
The opt-in deadline for the age-discrimination collective was March 7, 2026, and has passed. Plaintiffs have since asked the court to certify Rule 23 classes; that motion is set for hearing on March 9, 2027. If a class is certified, notice will explain who is covered.
Is there a Workday lawsuit settlement?
No. As of November 9, 2026, no settlement has been announced or reported, and no court has found that Workday discriminated. Treat any site asking for payment or personal data to claim a Workday settlement as unreliable.
What is the latest Workday lawsuit update?
On September 14, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for class certification, with a hearing set for March 9, 2027. Before that, on June 22, 2026, Judge Lin let California-law and disability claims proceed. Discovery continues.
Does Workday use AI to reject applicants?
Workday sells AI features, including its HiredScore tools, that score, rank or screen applicants for employers. The lawsuit alleges these tools rejected applicants unfairly; Workday disputes that. Whether its tools caused discriminatory rejections is the question the case has not yet answered.
Sources
- CourtListener docket: Mobley v. Workday, Inc., 3:23-cv-00770
- Duane Morris: court grants in part and denies in part Workday's motion to dismiss (June 24, 2026)
- Proskauer: court grants conditional certification of ADEA claim
- Reuters: Workday must face California lawsuit over AI bias (June 22, 2026)
- HR Dive: Workday partial loss on dismissal and amended complaint
- PR Newswire: court authorizes notice, opt in by March 7, 2026
- Staffing Industry Analysts: court orders Workday to name customers who used AI hiring tech
- Duane Morris: job applicants seek class certification (Sept. 25, 2026)
- Gunderson Dettmer: quarterly employment law update, fall 2026
This page is journalism and commentary, not legal advice. AI law changes quickly; check the primary sources above and consult qualified counsel for your situation.