[US] Judge denies Workday’s application to dismiss hiring bias allegations

In the US, a California federal judge has again refused to dismiss the majority of discrimination claims in Mobley v. Workday, HR Executive reports.

The class action lawsuit against Workday was initially filed in 2023. The case claims that the company’s AI applicant screening tool was unfairly biased and screened out certain sections of workers in ways that could violate state and federal law.

Workday reportedly attempted to have the allegations of bias within its AI dismissed over jurisdiction of use. But Judge Rita F. Lin determined that there was sufficient cause to let the case, and the additional disability discrimination claims, stand and be heard in court. 

The ruling maintains the possibility that vendors behind hiring technology can face direct liability for the outcomes their systems produce. HR Executive previously reported that experts suggested HR leaders should take on responsibility for auditing the systems.

In her June 22 order, Judge Lin largely upheld claims brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), though she dismissed some allegations tied to specific race claims on procedural grounds. 

The case is reportedly becoming a point of reference for how courts may treat automated screening tools used across the hiring process.

Bloomberg reported that Judge Lin allowed the case to proceed on key FEHA and ADA theories, including a disability claim tied to so-called proxy indicators, such as employment gaps. HR Executive says this is significant for HR leaders as it points to familiar screening indicators that may carry legal risk.

In addition, the court left open age-related claims tied to applicants over 40, continuing a lawsuit which has already become a test case for how employment law applies when software helps make candidate selections. 

Some race-based claims, including those involving Asian American applicants, were reportedly dismissed on procedural grounds, but the broader case remains.

Source: HR Executive

(Link via original reporting)

In the US, a California federal judge has again refused to dismiss the majority of discrimination claims in Mobley v. Workday, HR Executive reports.

The class action lawsuit against Workday was initially filed in 2023. The case claims that the company’s AI applicant screening tool was unfairly biased and screened out certain sections of workers in ways that could violate state and federal law.

Workday reportedly attempted to have the allegations of bias within its AI dismissed over jurisdiction of use. But Judge Rita F. Lin determined that there was sufficient cause to let the case, and the additional disability discrimination claims, stand and be heard in court. 

The ruling maintains the possibility that vendors behind hiring technology can face direct liability for the outcomes their systems produce. HR Executive previously reported that experts suggested HR leaders should take on responsibility for auditing the systems.

In her June 22 order, Judge Lin largely upheld claims brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), though she dismissed some allegations tied to specific race claims on procedural grounds. 

The case is reportedly becoming a point of reference for how courts may treat automated screening tools used across the hiring process.

Bloomberg reported that Judge Lin allowed the case to proceed on key FEHA and ADA theories, including a disability claim tied to so-called proxy indicators, such as employment gaps. HR Executive says this is significant for HR leaders as it points to familiar screening indicators that may carry legal risk.

In addition, the court left open age-related claims tied to applicants over 40, continuing a lawsuit which has already become a test case for how employment law applies when software helps make candidate selections. 

Some race-based claims, including those involving Asian American applicants, were reportedly dismissed on procedural grounds, but the broader case remains.

Source: HR Executive

(Link via original reporting)