Derek L. Mobley, et al. v. Workday, Inc.

Individuals who opted into the preliminarily certified ADEA collective reportedly received requests for employer names, roles, application dates, submitted CVs and authority for counsel to obtain records from employers and Workday. The court’s staged opt-in plan requires discovery from Workday customers concerning each opt-in plaintiff’s “recommendation” status. Plaintiffs bear the burden at final certification of showing that Workday’s AI features did not recommend collective members for hire. This is an evidence-gathering milestone, not a finding that Workday discriminated or a final certification decision. Eligibility remains provisional and the overall case status remains ongoing.

Judge Rita F. Lin denied the plaintiffs’ request for relief from a discovery order concerning applicant data stored within Workday customers’ segregated, password-protected tenants.

The court found that the earlier order reasonably concluded that the plaintiffs had not established that Workday possessed or controlled this customer data. Evidence before the court indicated that Workday was contractually and technically restricted from accessing it without customer permission.

The ruling may make it more difficult for the plaintiffs to obtain customer-level data needed to examine alleged discriminatory effects across different employers using Workday’s recruitment tools.

However, the court expressly distinguished customer-controlled applicant data from aggregated, anonymised statistics that Workday uses for its own purposes. The order indicates that such statistical information may not be covered by the discovery restriction.

The case remains ongoing, and the court has not determined whether Workday’s systems discriminated against applicants.

This is a binding discovery ruling concerning access to evidence. It is not a finding of discrimination or liability.

Judge Rita Lin granted in part and denied in part Workday’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court allowed the California FEHA claims to proceed, including for applicants who do not live in California, finding a sufficient connection to the state because Workday allegedly designs, develops, maintains, and operates the relevant screening tools from its California headquarters.

The court also revived an ADA disability claim based on allegations that the tools used proxy indicators of health. It dismissed the newly added race-based disparate-impact claim and rejected the theory that Workday was liable as an employer merely because it used the same tools in its own hiring.

The court addressed discovery requests involving bias-testing materials, customer records, and applicant data. The order shows how documentation, testing evidence, and customer/provider data may become central in AI hiring litigation.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding and revising allegations against Workday. The amendment expanded the case beyond the earlier federal age-discrimination focus.

The court conditionally certified a nationwide ADEA collective. This moved the age-discrimination theory beyond an individual claim and created a broader potential plaintiff group.