Workday Class Action Lawsuit, Millions of Job Seekers Over 40 Just Got Green Light to Sue Workday—Court Says AI Hiring Software May Have Discriminated Against Them
What the Workday Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Right Now
A federal judge granted conditional certification for Mobley v. Workday to proceed as a nationwide collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) on May 16, 2025. The lawsuit claims Workday’s AI-powered hiring software systematically discriminated against job applicants aged 40 and older across hundreds of companies.
Lead plaintiff Derek Mobley was rejected from over 100 positions despite being allegedly qualified, receiving rejection emails outside business hours and within an hour after submitting applications.
Here’s what’s making this case unprecedented: The collective could include millions of job applicants, and the court ruled that Workday could be held directly liable as an “agent” of employers under federal discrimination laws.
If you applied for jobs through Workday’s platform since September 2020 and you’re over 40, you might be part of one of the largest employment discrimination cases in U.S. history.
The Moment Everything Changed for AI Hiring
Derek Mobley, a Black man over 40, claims he applied to more than 100 jobs with companies using Workday’s screening features and was rejected every single time.
The pattern was disturbing. Applications submitted at 12:55 a.m. Rejections within minutes. No human review. No interviews.
The court cited the “sheer number of rejections and the timing of those decisions” as supporting a plausible inference that Workday’s screening algorithms were automatically rejecting applications based on protected traits rather than qualifications.
This isn’t about one frustrated job seeker. Workday represented in court filings that 1.1 billion applications were rejected using its software tools during the relevant period. That’s billion with a “B.”
Who Is Derek Mobley and Why His Story Matters
Derek Mobley is a 40-year-old African American male who suffers from anxiety and depression. He graduated cum laude from Morehouse College and has nearly a decade of experience in financial, IT, and customer service roles.
Despite his qualifications, Mobley was rejected at the screening stage from over 100 positions of wide range and type, even though he was allegedly qualified for all those jobs.
Four additional plaintiffs joined Mobley, all over forty, stating they submitted hundreds of employment applications through Workday and were rejected nearly every time.
Their common thread? Workday’s AI screening tools.
What Workday’s AI Tools Actually Do
Workday offers two AI-based tools under scrutiny: Candidate Skills Match, which extracts skills and determines match levels reported as “strong,” “good,” “fair,” “low,” “pending,” or “unable to score,” and Workday Assessment Connector.
The Assessment Connector is particularly problematic. It allegedly uses machine learning to observe that an employer disfavors certain candidates who are members of a protected class and decreases the rate at which it recommends those candidates.
Think about that. The software allegedly learns employer bias and then amplifies it.
Unlike passive tools like spreadsheets, Workday’s tools perform traditional hiring functions of rejecting candidates at the screening stage and recommending who advances.
The Legal Breakthrough That Changes Everything
The court dismissed claims that Workday was an “employment agency” but allowed claims that Workday acted as an “agent” of employers to proceed.
Why does this matter?
The court emphasized that Workday’s software is not simply implementing employer criteria in a rote way, but is instead participating in the decision-making process by recommending some candidates and rejecting others.
The EEOC filed an amicus brief supporting this novel theory of AI vendor liability, giving the case significant weight.
This precedent could open the door for AI vendors across industries to face direct liability for discriminatory outcomes.
Class Certification: Who Can Join This Lawsuit
The certified collective includes all individuals aged 40 and over who, from September 24, 2020 through the present, applied for job opportunities using Workday’s job application platform and were denied employment recommendations.
That’s millions of potential class members.
In July 2025, the court ruled that the collective includes applicants whose applications were scored, ranked, or screened using Workday’s HiredScore AI features.
Notice will be issued to allegedly affected job applicants, in what could be one of the largest collectives ever certified.
How to Join the Workday Lawsuit
The court approved a plan for providing notice to prospective members of the collective on December 2, 2025.
Judge Lin indicated that if traditional notice methods fail, they could consider class notice via social media or Workday’s own platforms.
The judge ordered Workday to provide a list of customers using their AI screening features so applicants can be notified and given the opportunity to opt in.
If you believe you were affected:
- Watch for official notice by mail, email, or social media
- Consult with an employment discrimination attorney
- Follow court updates at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- Case number: 3:23-cv-00770-RFL
This is an “opt-in” collective action under the ADEA, meaning you must actively join if you want to participate.
What Damages Are Being Sought
Mobley seeks a declaration that Workday’s tools violate anti-discrimination laws, an injunction preventing Workday from using discriminative hiring algorithms, and monetary damages on behalf of himself and others with similar protected traits.
The lawsuit is seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as a court order requiring the company to change its practices.
No settlement amount has been announced yet. The case is still in active litigation.
For context, the EEOC reached a $365,000 settlement with iTutorGroup over programming software to automatically reject applicants aged 55 or older and 60 or older, but that case involved far fewer plaintiffs.
Given the scale of this case—potentially hundreds of millions of affected applicants—any settlement or verdict could be substantial.
The Evidence Supporting Discrimination Claims
The court found the allegations sufficiently plausible based on several factors:
The sheer volume of Mobley’s rejections from over 100 jobs across many different industries and employers, all using Workday’s screening tools.
Rejection emails received outside of business hours and within an hour after submitting applications, suggesting automated decisions without human review.
Allegations that Workday’s tools were designed in a manner that reflects employer biases and relies on biased training data.
The court noted that in a traditional employment discrimination case, having over 100 qualified applicants like Mobley—African American, over 40, with disabilities—all strike out would be highly suspicious.
What Workday Says in Its Defense
Workday maintains it’s just a software provider, not an employer making hiring decisions.
Workday denies responsibility, arguing that hiring decisions rest with its clients, and its technology simply compares candidate qualifications to client-defined job requirements without identifying or acting on protected characteristics.
In response to the court’s May 2025 decision, Workday expressed that the lawsuit lacks merit and emphasized that the court’s decision is only preliminary.
Workday can seek to “decertify” the class later in litigation after discovery.
The company argued that its tools vary based on different employers’ preferences and that this variability makes collective treatment improper. The court rejected this argument
Recent Court Developments (2024-2025)
July 12, 2024: The court granted Workday’s motion to dismiss in part, dismissing employment agency and intentional discrimination claims but allowing disparate impact claims to proceed.
August 2, 2024: Workday filed an answer denying the plaintiff’s allegations.
February 6, 2025: Mobley filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action on his ADEA age discrimination claim.
May 16, 2025: The court granted conditional certification, allowing the case to proceed as a nationwide collective action.
July 7, 2025: The court ruled that the collective includes applicants processed using HiredScore AI features and required Workday to identify customers using those features.
December 2, 2025: The court approved a plan for providing notice to prospective collective members.
As of December 17, 2025: The case is ongoing.
The Companies That Use Workday
Workday is used by over 11,000 organizations around the world.
Millions of open jobs are listed with Workday’s technology each month.
Workday has been ordered to provide a list of customers using their AI screening features. If your name is on that list and you applied for jobs through their system, you’re about to receive official notice about joining the lawsuit.
Major corporations across industries—from tech giants to financial institutions to healthcare companies—rely on Workday for recruitment.
What This Means for AI Hiring Practices
This is the first challenge to the use of AI in hiring decisions and a preview to how courts are likely to treat AI suits brought directly against employers.
President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies, including the EEOC, to eliminate enforcement based on disparate impact theory, which will reduce government-led investigations, but it doesn’t affect private litigation like the Workday case.
Courts and regulatory agencies have made clear that employers are ultimately responsible for discriminatory outcomes, even when third-party tools are involved.
A common misconception is that if the vendor’s algorithm does the screening, then liability shifts to the vendor. That’s not the case.
Both Workday and employers using its software could face liability.
Similar AI Discrimination Cases
The EEOC reached a $365,000 settlement with iTutorGroup over programming software to automatically reject female applicants aged 55 or older and male applicants aged 60 or older, affecting over 200 qualified U.S. applicants.
Amazon famously scrapped an AI recruiting tool that penalized resumes containing the word “women’s” or graduates of all-women’s colleges.
Academic studies found that large language models often associate successful women with traits like “empathy” and “patience,” while linking successful men with “knowledge” and “intelligence”.
The Workday case represents the most significant legal challenge to AI hiring discrimination to date.
What Employers Using Workday Should Do Now
If you’re using Workday’s applicant screening tools, your company’s name is about to be on a list that goes out to potentially millions of people who might believe they were discriminated against.
The court’s decision underscores the urgent need for AI compliance diligence.
Practical steps:
- Conduct bias audits of your AI tools immediately
- Ensure human oversight in hiring decisions—AI should support, not replace, human judgment
- Document how your AI systems are tested for bias
- Review vendor contracts for indemnification clauses
- Train HR teams on when to override algorithmic rankings
- Keep the process defensible by maintaining records of decision-making
If a vendor cannot provide its latest bias audit, move on.
The Broader Implications for Workers
87% of employers now rely on AI to evaluate candidates.
Experienced workers—especially those over 40—are finding it harder and longer to land their next role, with qualified candidates spending six, nine, even twelve months in job searches.
When people are frustrated, rejected repeatedly, and suspect bias, they’re more motivated than ever to join class action lawsuits.
This case could fundamentally reshape how companies use AI in hiring, potentially forcing transparency requirements, regular bias testing, and mandatory human oversight.
Federal Laws at Stake
The Workday lawsuit involves potential violations of multiple federal anti-discrimination laws:
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): Protects workers 40 and older from employment discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.
42 U.S.C. § 1981: Prohibits racial discrimination in contracts, including employment contracts.
Mobley’s claims under Title VII and intentional discrimination were dismissed, but disparate impact claims under the ADEA survived and form the basis of the certified collective action.
What “Disparate Impact” Really Means
Disparate impact doesn’t require proof of intentional discrimination. It allows claims to proceed without proof of intentional discrimination—a crucial distinction.
To establish disparate impact, plaintiffs must show: a significant disparate impact on a protected class, identify the specific employment practice at issue, and show a causal relationship between the practice and the disparate impact.
The volume and speed of rejections across hundreds of applications supports an inference that Workday’s system functionally screened applicants out based on age.
Despite President Trump’s executive order directing agencies to de-prioritize disparate impact cases, disparate impact claims are alive and well in private litigation.
The Role of Biased Training Data
Mobley claimed that Workday’s tools were designed in a manner that reflects employer biases and relies on biased training data.
AI systems learn from historical data. If that data reflects past discrimination—for example, if a company historically hired fewer older workers—the AI will replicate and potentially amplify that bias.
The Workday Assessment Connector allegedly uses machine learning to observe that an employer disfavors certain candidates who are members of a protected class and decreases the rate at which it recommends those candidates.
This creates a feedback loop: past discrimination informs the algorithm, which then perpetuates discrimination into the future.
Why This Case Survived Dismissal
Workday tried twice to get the case dismissed. Both times, the court said no.
On January 19, 2024, the court granted dismissal with leave to amend because the original complaint didn’t sufficiently show Workday was an employment agency, indirect employer, or agent.
On July 12, 2024, after Mobley filed an amended complaint, the court granted Workday’s second motion to dismiss in part but denied it for disparate impact claims.
The key difference? The court found that Workday’s tools are engaged in conduct that is at the heart of equal access to employment opportunities, performing traditional hiring functions through AI and machine learning.
Official Resources and Where to Get Help
Court Documents: Visit the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse at https://clearinghouse.net/case/44074/ for full case filings.
EEOC Guidance: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provides guidance on AI hiring discrimination at https://www.eeoc.gov
File an EEOC Complaint: If you believe you experienced discrimination, file at https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination
Legal Assistance: Contact employment discrimination attorneys in your area. Many offer free consultations for potential class action participants.
Case Updates: Monitor the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL) for developments.
Timeline: Key Dates in Mobley v. Workday
February 21, 2023: Derek Mobley files lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
January 19, 2024: Court grants Workday’s first motion to dismiss with leave to amend
February 20, 2024: Mobley files amended complaint with additional allegations
April 9, 2024: EEOC files amicus brief supporting plaintiff’s theories of AI vendor liability
July 12, 2024: Court denies Workday’s second motion to dismiss for disparate impact claims
August 2, 2024: Workday files answer denying allegations
February 6, 2025: Mobley files motion for conditional certification of collective action
May 16, 2025: Court grants conditional certification—case proceeds as nationwide collective action
July 7, 2025: Court rules collective includes HiredScore AI features; Workday must identify affected customers
December 2, 2025: Court approves notice plan for prospective collective members
December 17, 2025: Case is ongoing
What Happens Next in This Lawsuit
The case now enters discovery, where both sides exchange evidence and documents.
Workday can seek to “decertify” the class later in litigation, after discovery, by presenting evidence that the collective is not similarly situated.
The parties were ordered to meet and confer to propose a plan for identifying and notifying class members.
Workday must produce its customer list and notify millions of potentially affected applicants.
Experts will likely testify about algorithmic bias, statistical disparities, and AI system design.
Settlement negotiations may occur, though neither party has indicated willingness to settle.
If no settlement is reached, the case could proceed to trial, potentially setting landmark precedent for AI vendor liability.
Questions Readers Are Asking
How do I know if I was affected by Workday’s AI screening?
If you applied for jobs at companies using Workday since September 2020 and are over 40, you may be eligible. Watch for official notice by mail, email, or through social media about joining the collective action.
Can I join the lawsuit if I’m not sure which jobs used Workday?
Workday has been ordered to provide a list of customers using their AI screening features so applicants can be notified. The notice will help identify if companies where you applied used Workday’s system.
What if I was rejected for reasons other than age?
The current certified collective action covers age discrimination under ADEA. While Mobley’s original complaint included race and disability discrimination claims, those were dismissed. However, facts uncovered in discovery could lead to additional legal action.
Will joining the lawsuit affect my future job applications?
Participating in a collective action is protected activity under federal law. Employers cannot retaliate against you for exercising your legal rights.
How long will this case take?
Employment discrimination class actions typically take 2-5 years to resolve through settlement or trial. Given the complexity and size of this case, it could be on the longer end of that spectrum.
What evidence do I need to join?
For opt-in collective actions under ADEA, you typically need to show you applied for jobs through Workday’s platform during the relevant period and were rejected. Save any rejection emails, application confirmations, and documentation of the jobs you applied for.
The Bottom Line
This is one of the largest employment discrimination collectives ever certified, potentially affecting millions of job applicants.
Not only is this the first challenge to the use of AI in hiring decisions, but it’s also a preview to how courts are likely to treat AI suits brought directly against employers.
Whether you’re a job seeker who suspects you were screened out by biased AI, an employer using Workday or similar tools, or an HR professional trying to navigate this rapidly evolving landscape, this case matters.
When people are frustrated, rejected repeatedly, and suspect bias, they’re more motivated than ever to join a class action lawsuit.
The court has spoken: AI vendors can’t hide behind their employer clients when their algorithms allegedly discriminate. And millions of workers over 40 now have a path to hold them accountable.
Related Legal Resources
Learn About Employment Discrimination: Read our comprehensive guide on What is a RICO Lawsuit to understand complex federal litigation.
Understand Class Actions: Check out our article on 23andMe $50M Class Action Settlement to see how settlements work.
Data Privacy Concerns: Read about TransUnion Data Breach affecting millions of Americans.
Tech Company Accountability: Learn about Google Drive Data Loss Lawsuit showing how users fight back against tech giants.
This article provides general information about the Workday class action lawsuit and should not be considered legal advice. If you believe you were affected, consult with a qualified employment discrimination attorney to discuss your specific situation.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah