Derek Mobley is asking a federal court to let his hiring-bias lawsuit against Workday proceed as a class action. The case says Workday's AI screening tools rejected Black, female, older and disabled job seekers at disproportionate rates. Disparate impact means a neutral hiring process that still harms a protected group.
Mobley sued in February 2023 in California federal court as Mobley v. Workday, No. 3:23-cv-00770. Plaintiffs seek to represent large groups of applicants, not only one person's rejections.
Official resources:
- Check eligibility on Jobcannon’s official study page — Use this page to check the study’s participation requirements.
- Read the official notice from Warden Ai — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What the plaintiff says happened
- What courts have allowed so far
- Who could be included
- What this does not decide yet
What the plaintiff says happened
Lead plaintiff Derek Mobley is Black, over 40 and reports anxiety and depression. He says he applied to more than 100 jobs with employers using Workday and was rejected each time.
TechTimes UK reports in its case report many rejections arrived within minutes or hours, which the suit links to automated screening. The lawsuit alleges the screening caused disparate impact by race, age and disability. Its focus is group-level outcomes from the hiring tools rather than only Mobley's own applications.
What courts have allowed so far
On July 12, 2024, the court found it plausible Workday acted as its employer-customers' agent. That ruling let disparate-impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA move forward. JobCannon explains in its detailed case timeline the court dismissed the employment-agency and intentional-discrimination theories.
On May 16, 2025, Judge Rita Lin granted conditional certification of a nationwide ADEA collective action. It covers applicants age 40 or older denied employment recommendations through Workday's platform since Sept. 24, 2020. Secretariat describes the order in its analysis of AI-driven class actions.
Who could be included
Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23 motion on Sept. 14 seeking classes of Black applicants, women, applicants 40 and over, and applicants with disabilities. V101, summarizing Reuters, lists those proposed groups in its September coverage.
The ADEA collective is separate from the proposed Rule 23 classes. JobCannon puts participation at about 15,000 consents after court-authorized notice ran Jan. 6 to March 7, 2026, with late consents accepted through April 14, 2026.
What this does not decide yet
The court has made no final finding that Workday's tools discriminated. According to the Warden AI litigation tracker, no Rule 23 class has been certified and the merits remain undecided.
Workday denies wrongdoing and says employers control hiring decisions. The practical stakes concern whether an HR software vendor faces direct liability as an employer's agent. According to The AI Table, that issue affects audits and contracts for AI hiring tools used broadly, including by two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies.
- No payment or Rule 23 class membership is available now.
- The ADEA collective used a court-ordered notice and consent process.
- The next major milestone is the class-certification hearing scheduled for March 9, 2027.