Mobley v. Workday: The Leading AI Hiring-Discrimination Case

The court is testing when an algorithmic screening vendor may face employment-discrimination claims.

What happened—and what the record establishes

Derek Mobley and additional plaintiffs allege that Workday’s algorithm-based applicant-screening tools discriminated based on protected characteristics including race, age, disability, and sex. Workday disputes the allegations.

Earlier rulings allowed certain disparate-impact theories to proceed, including a theory that a vendor can potentially act as an employer’s agent when delegated decision-making functions. In March 2026, the court again granted in part and denied in part a motion addressing amended claims. These are procedural rulings, not a trial finding that the algorithms discriminated.

The case matters because employers often purchase screening tools rather than build them. Existing civil-rights statutes can apply regardless of whether a decision is made by a person, a rule, or machine-learning software.

Questions the law must answer

• Did the tool materially influence an employment decision?
• Can statistical evidence connect the tool to a protected-group disparity?
• Who configured, validated, and controlled the screening criteria?

Practical takeaways

• Vendors may not be outside employment law merely because they are third parties.
• Rejected applicants should save job postings, submissions, timestamps, and notices.
• Employers should audit tools before and during deployment.