FOLLOW US

Case Summary

1. Collective Certified: District Judge Rita Lin approved preliminary certification for a nationwide group of applicants aged 40‑plus who say Workday’s résumé‑ranking engine shut them out of jobs.
2. Unified Policy in the Crosshairs: The order finds Workday’s Candidate Skills Match and Assessment Connector tools form a single, AI‑driven policy whose disparate impact can be proven with common evidence.
3. Ripple Risk for HR Tech: The ruling rejects Workday’s “too big to notify” argument and signals that vendors—not just employers—may face sweeping liability if algorithms skew against protected groups.

By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald

SAN JOSE, CA - When Derek Mobley clicked “submit” on yet another Workday‑powered application, he had no idea he was stepping into an AI minefield. Five years and hundreds of automated rejections later, his lawsuit is poised to redefine the legal landscape for every résumé‑screening algorithm in America.

On May 16, 2025, Judge Rita Lin issued a 33‑page order that grants preliminary collective certification to “[a]ll individuals aged 40 and over who, from September 24, 2020 to the present, applied for jobs using Workday and were denied employment recommendations.”  The decision gives Mobley and four co‑plaintiffs the green light to alert potentially millions of similarly situated job‑seekers.

Inside the Order: Five Takeaways Employers Can’t Ignore

1. A Single, AI‑Driven Policy Is Enough

Workday insisted its customers, not its software, make hiring decisions. Judge Lin disagreed, pointing to discovery excerpts showing that Candidate Skills Match (CSM) automatically assigns “strong,” “good,” “fair,” or “low” scores, while Workday Assessment Connector (WAC) can down‑rank protected‑class applicants when employer behavior trains it to do so. That unified scoring framework—“the digital gatekeeper,” as the court puts it—creates a common question for every applicant over 40.

2. Sliding‑Scale Burdens Rejected

Workday urged a tougher evidentiary standard because some discovery had occurred. The court refused, sticking to the Ninth Circuit’s two‑step collective action test, where stage one is “loosely akin to a plausibility standard” and stage two resembles summary judgment NYC.gov. Translation: Plaintiffs do not need full statistics now; credible allegations plus a coherent theory suffice.

3. Size Doesn’t Scare the Court

Workday warned that notifying every rejected applicant could swamp the docket with “hundreds of millions” of claims. Judge Lin answered bluntly: allegedly widespread discrimination is not a reason to gag notice.” If Workday’s own records show 1.1 billion rejections, so be it—the company must still cooperate on a notice plan by May 28, 2025, ahead of a June 4 case‑management conference EEOC.