Workday faces a proposed class action in California over claims its AI hiring tools screened out applicants, as plaintiffs seek to have their claims heard together.
The case tests whether a technology provider can be held responsible for alleged discriminatory effects from its screening tools, even when employers configure and use the software. A class-certification ruling would decide whether proposed groups can pursue claims together; it would not decide whether discrimination occurred.
Workday Applicants Say Screening Tools Rejected Them
The lawsuit, Mobley v. Workday, began in 2023. Lead plaintiff Derek Mobley, who is Black, over 40 and disabled, says he was rejected from more than 100 jobs at companies using Workday's recruiting software. Other plaintiffs allege the tools disproportionately screened out Black applicants, women, people aged 40 and over, and people with disabilities. These are allegations, not findings that the software discriminated.
The plaintiffs argue that screening systems can reproduce patterns in past hiring data, even when they are not instructed to consider protected characteristics. They say Workday's tools score, rank or recommend applicants, influencing who reaches an employer's hiring team.
The case therefore tests how much responsibility a software provider may carry when its tools shape access to jobs.
Workday denies wrongdoing. Reuters reported that the company says its tools assess job qualifications, employers retain control over their hiring processes, and customers can customise how the software is used. Workday also says it tests its products for bias.
Earlier rulings allowed some claims to continue while dismissing others, including claims of intentional discrimination. On 22 June 2026, a federal judge allowed parts of an amended complaint to proceed, including claims under California law and a disability claim based on alleged proxy indicators.
The decision addressed whether claims could proceed, not whether Workday's tools had discriminated.
14 September Motion Seeks Four Proposed Classes
On 14 September, the plaintiffs sought certification of proposed classes covering Black applicants, women, people aged 40 and over, and people with disabilities. These proposed classes are distinct from the age-discrimination collective conditionally certified under federal law in 2025.
The court's 7 October order recorded that more than 15,000 people had opted into that existing age-discrimination collective. That figure does not describe the size of the four proposed classes.
In an order dated 6 October and filed the following day, the court authorised Workday to question 15 of the 38 applicants whose declarations supported the certification motion. The permitted depositions were limited to two hours each, conducted remotely and confined to the applicants' declarations. The order does not establish that the depositions took place.
The certification motion remains pending. Workday's opposition is due on 10 November, and a hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2027. Certification would allow some claims to proceed collectively; it would not establish that discrimination occurred.
UK ICO Sets Separate Expectations for Automated Recruitment
The US case does not establish that Workday's tools are used in the same way by UK employers, or that UK applicants have experienced the alleged discrimination. The UK connection is the wider use and oversight of automated recruitment systems.
In March 2026, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said its engagement with more than 30 employers suggested that some may rely on recruitment decisions made without meaningful human involvement. The regulator called for clearer information for candidates, consistent human involvement where it is used, and better monitoring for bias.
It said the findings came from voluntary engagement, not an audit or investigation.
The ICO also recognises that automation can help employers process applications and can be lawful when applicable safeguards are in place. Its findings concern decisions made solely by automated processing that have legal or similarly significant effects, not every use of software in recruitment.
A r/UKJobs user wrote on 30 June 2026 that an automated phone interview for a warehouse role ended in rejection after they said their public-transport journey would take about an hour.
The post does not identify the provider or establish whether the system made the final decision. It is an individual, unverified account, not evidence about Workday or discriminatory outcomes.
For UK applicants, the practical question is whether automated systems are involved in decisions about their applications and what safeguards apply. The ICO says candidates should be informed about relevant automated decisions and may have rights to challenge certain decisions and request human review.
TechTimes has also reported on AI-assisted assessments used to help select emergency call handlers, where accuracy, bias and human oversight were raised as questions. California's separate workplace rules for AI and employment decisions offer additional US context, though they do not determine the Workday case.
