- 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.
- Data‑Access Hurdles Fall Away
Workday argued privacy clauses bar it from mining applicant data. The court cited a “court‑order exception” in those contracts and pointed to proxies such as graduation year to identify age‑40+ candidates Artificial Intelligence Act. Employers using Workday should brace for subpoenas seeking the same fields.
- Disparate Impact, Not Intent, Runs the Show
Unlike disparate‑treatment claims, plaintiffs do not need to prove intentional bias or personal qualifications at this stage. The injury is being forced through a filter that statistically undervalues older workers. That subtle shift aligns with Supreme Court precedent on biased testing and opens the door for statistical experts to attack AI models themselves.
