UPDATE: July 17, 2024: This story has been updated with a comment from Workday.
—
A lawsuit alleging that Workday’s AI screening software tool is biased can move forward, a federal district court judge ruled Friday, partially denying the company’s motion to dismiss (Mobley v. Workday, Inc.).
The plaintiff alleged that since 2017, he has applied to over 100 positions at companies that use Workday screening tools for recruiting. He has been rejected from every position, despite having the relevant qualifications, he said.
The worker alleged race, age and disability discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In his complaint, he said he uploaded his education information — including his graduation date from a historically Black college — and often was required to complete assessments and personality tests that likely revealed and screened him out because of his depression and anxiety. Because he often received rejections rapidly and in the middle of the night, he inferred they were automated.
Workday filed a motion to dismiss the worker’s lawsuit, citing failure to state a claim and arguing that, as a software vendor, it is not liable for employment discrimination. The court denied the motion on the grounds that the company acts as an agent of employers under the relevant laws.
“Workday’s software is not simply implementing in a rote way the criteria that employers set forth, but is instead participating in the decision-making process by recommending some candidates to move forward and rejecting others,” the judge said. “Given Workday’s allegedly crucial role in deciding which applicants can get their ‘foot in the door’ for an interview, Workday’s tools are engaged in conduct that is at the heart of equal access to employment opportunities.”
The plaintiff did not plausibly allege that Workday is an employment agency, however, the judge found, noting the software does not recruit, solicit or otherwise procure employees for companies. The court also agreed with Workday that the plaintiff failed to allege specific facts showing it intentionally discriminated against him — even if he did show the tools had a disparate impact.
In a statement provided to HR Dive, Workday appeared to welcome the development. “We’re pleased that the majority of claims in this case were dismissed, and we’re confident that the remaining allegations will be easily refuted as we move to the next phase where we’ll have an opportunity to directly challenge their accuracy,” a company spokesperson said.
The case against Workday represents an evolving area of employment law as more HR departments lean on AI-assisted software to screen job candidates. Federal and state agencies and lawmakers have begun to pass laws and craft guidance to help employers and vendors understand their responsibility in using such tools.
New York City last year began requiring employers to notify candidates about their use of AI decision-making software. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an initiative in 2021 to ensure AI-assisted software complies with EEO laws and released a related technical assistance document in May 2023.
EEOC also weighed in on the Workday case specifically, filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff in April.
