Mobley vs Workday
Using an outside hiring platform does not mean you have outsourced your responsibility for fair hiring.
Artificial intelligence is already embedded in many hiring systems, even when employers do not consider themselves to be using AI. Applicant tracking systems may screen applications, rank candidates, recommend matches, or determine which applicants a hiring manager sees.
That efficiency comes with a growing question: Who is responsible when the technology produces discriminatory results?
The lawsuit Mobley v. Workday may help answer that question.
Derek Mobley alleges that he applied for more than 100 positions with companies using Workday’s recruiting technology and was repeatedly rejected, sometimes shortly after applying and outside normal business hours.
Mobley, who is Black, over 40, and has anxiety and depression, claims Workday’s automated screening tools discriminated against applicants based on race, age, and disability. Additional plaintiffs have since joined the case.
Workday has argued that it provides software to employers but does not make their hiring decisions. The court, however, previously determined that Workday could potentially be considered an agent of the employers using its system.
In June 2026, a federal judge allowed significant disability discrimination and California state-law claims to continue. This does not mean the court determined that Workday discriminated against applicants. It means the plaintiffs' claims can move forward rather than be dismissed at this stage. Reuters provides a helpful overview of the latest ruling.
This is not an isolated concern
In an earlier, smaller case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that iTutorGroup’s recruiting software automatically rejected female applicants age 55 or older and male applicants age 60 or older.
The case settled for $365,000, with compensation going to more than 200 applicants. The company denied wrongdoing, but the settlement demonstrated that discrimination need not involve a manager intentionally rejecting someone because of age. A rule built into the technology can create the same legal problem. The EEOC’s settlement announcement explains the case and its outcome.
A more recent proposed class action against Eightfold AI takes the issue in another direction. Applicants allege that the platform created undisclosed candidate scores and profiles using information beyond what they knowingly submitted, potentially implicating federal consumer reporting requirements. Those allegations have not been proven, but the case shows that the legal questions surrounding AI hiring tools now extend beyond discrimination to transparency, consent, and data use. Read the filed Eightfold complaint here.
What this means for employers
You cannot assume the technology is compliant simply because it came from a reputable vendor. You also cannot assume that responsibility belongs entirely to the software company.
If your business uses an applicant tracking system, automated assessment, resume screening tool, chatbot, or candidate-ranking feature:
Ask the vendor exactly how candidates are screened, ranked, and rejected.
Determine whether decisions are based only on job-related criteria.
Find out whether the tool has been independently tested for discriminatory impact.
Review which candidates are being screened out before a person sees them.
Provide a way for applicants to request an accommodation or human review.
Confirm what candidate data is collected and whether additional disclosures are required.
Keep meaningful human judgment in the hiring process.
You do not need to stop using technology. You do need to understand what it is doing in your name.
The lesson from Mobley v. Workday is not that every automated hiring tool is discriminatory. It is that employers remain responsible for understanding how their hiring decisions are made. Even when technology does part of the work.
Comments