What Is the Workday Lawsuit?
The Workday lawsuit is Mobley v. Workday, Inc., a federal case alleging that Workday's AI-based applicant recommendation system discriminates against job applicants on the basis of age, race, and disability. It is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL before Judge Rita F. Lin, and Derek Mobley filed it on February 21, 2023.
The Workday lawsuit is not a settled class action. It is a putative class action in which one claim, age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), has been preliminarily certified as a nationwide opt-in collective action, while the broader class claims await a certification ruling.
Many people searching this topic mean a different Workday dispute, such as a government payroll rollout lawsuit. Those cases involve pay errors rather than hiring bias, and the comparison section below separates them.
“Derek Mobley brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc., alleging that Workday’s artificial intelligence (“AI”)-based applicant recommendation system discriminated against job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability. Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty, who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview, allegedly because of age discrimination in Workday’s AI recommendation system.”
Source: Source: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-00770-RFL, Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, Document 128 (May 16, 2025)
Why Are People Filing Workday Lawsuits?
People are filing Workday lawsuits because they allege Workday's AI-based recommendation system scores, sorts, ranks, or screens job applications in a way that disadvantages applicants over 40 and other protected groups. The court's preliminary certification order describes the central theory as a unified policy, the use of that system to screen applicants, which allegedly makes applicants compete on unequal footing.
Mobley alleges he applied to more than 100 positions since 2017 with companies that use Workday's screening features and was denied employment every time. Four opt-in plaintiffs over 40 stated in declarations that they submitted hundreds of applications through the Workday system and were rejected nearly every time, and each reported at least one automated rejection email for a job whose qualifications they met.
The plaintiffs say employers delegate traditional hiring functions, including rejecting applicants, to Workday's algorithmic tools. The court has quoted that allegation, along with the claim that the tools recommend some candidates and reject others, in its own orders. The tools named in the case include Workday Recruiting, Candidate Skills Match, and the HiredScore features Spotlight and Fetch, which Workday acquired after the operative complaint was filed.
Workday contests the claims. It has argued that customers decide whether to enable, disable, use, or ignore its AI features, and that the collective could reach hundreds of millions of people. No court has found that Workday discriminated against anyone.
What Injuries Are Included in the Workday Lawsuit?
The injuries included in the Workday lawsuit are employment harms, mainly lost job opportunities and rejection without an interview, not physical injuries. The three categories below are alleged discrimination theories, and Workday has contested each of them in court.
Age Discrimination
Age discrimination in hiring means treating a job applicant less favorably because of age, and the ADEA protects applicants who are 40 or older.
The age claim rests on a disparate impact theory, which asks whether a hiring practice that looks neutral disproportionately screens out older applicants, whatever the intent behind it. The plaintiffs allege Workday's recommendation system has that effect on applicants over 40.
The court has found the ADEA disparate impact claim plausible, and it later rejected Workday's argument that the ADEA does not cover job applicants. Age is the only claim so far to receive preliminary collective certification, so it is the claim most people mean when they ask how to join the lawsuit.
Disability Discrimination
Disability discrimination in hiring means treating an applicant less favorably because of a physical or mental condition, which the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits.
The disability claim alleges that screening tools can rely on proxy indicators of health conditions, such as patterns of medical leave or treatment, to filter out applicants with disabilities. Derek Mobley's complaint also alleges disability discrimination on his own behalf.
The court allowed the proxy theory to proceed after Workday challenged it, as described in the case status section below. That ruling only lets the theory continue toward discovery, and it does not decide whether the tools actually discriminate.
Race Discrimination
Race discrimination in hiring means treating an applicant less favorably because of race, which Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and California law prohibit.
Mobley's original complaint alleges that Workday's system discriminated against applicants because of race as well as age and disability. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims, which the court allowed to continue, also reach this kind of claim.
One race-based Title VII claim added by another plaintiff was dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits. The plaintiffs reportedly proposed separate subclasses by race, sex, age, and disability in their class certification motion, and no subclass has been certified.
Who Qualifies for the Workday Lawsuit?
You may qualify if:
- You are age 40 or older and applied for a job through Workday's job application platform on or after September 24, 2020, and were denied employment recommendations, which is the court's preliminary collective definition
- Your application was scored, sorted, ranked, or screened using HiredScore AI features, since the court included those features in the preliminary collective's scope
- You filed a written consent to opt in before the March 7, 2026 deadline, because members of an ADEA collective must opt in to take part
- You can identify the employers you applied to and the approximate dates, which helps show your application passed through a Workday system
You may not qualify if:
- You were under 40 when you applied, since the age discrimination collective covers only applicants 40 and older
- You did not apply through a Workday platform, or you applied only before September 24, 2020
- You did not opt in by March 7, 2026, in which case you are generally not a member of the collective, although a separate charge with the EEOC may remain possible depending on your facts
Only the court decides who belongs to the collective, and Workday may ask the court to decertify it after discovery. Whether you have a viable claim depends on your state, the timing of your applications, and filing deadlines, and only a qualified attorney reviewing your records can confirm it. The collective is not a settlement, and nobody is owed a payment today.
What Is the Current Status of the Workday Class Action Lawsuit?
The current status of the Workday class action lawsuit is active pretrial litigation, with a preliminarily certified age discrimination collective, a pending class certification motion, and no trial or settlement date. Judge Rita F. Lin is deciding the legal questions, and discovery disputes are handled by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.
Mobley v. Workday, Inc.
Mobley v. Workday, Inc. is a putative class action in which the age discrimination claim proceeds as a preliminarily certified collective action. Preliminary certification lets plaintiffs notify similarly situated people and invite them to opt in, and the court has said Workday may later present evidence that the collective is not similarly situated and ask the court to decertify it.
On June 22, 2026, Judge Lin largely denied Workday's motion directed at the Third Amended Complaint, according to a Duane Morris summary of ECF No. 360. The court let the California FEHA claims proceed, including for applicants outside California, and let a disability proxy theory go forward. It struck a theory that Workday is liable as an employer for using the tools in its own hiring.
Plaintiffs' class certification motion was due September 14, 2026, and Workday's opposition and motion to decertify are due November 10, 2026. The court has set the class certification hearing for March 9, 2027.
| Proceeding Type | Putative class action with a preliminarily certified nationwide ADEA opt-in collective |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Docket | Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (Mobley v. Workday, Inc.) |
| Judge | Rita F. Lin; discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler |
| Filed | February 21, 2023 |
| Collective Certified | May 16, 2025 (preliminary, ADEA claim only) |
| Opt-In Period | Closed March 7, 2026 |
| Class Certification Hearing | March 9, 2027, 10:00 a.m. |
| Defendant | Workday, Inc. |
| Trial Date | None set |
| Settlement Status | None reported as of November 1, 2026 |
Has the Workday Lawsuit Settled?
No, the Workday lawsuit has not settled, and no settlement fund, claim form, or payout amount exists as of November 1, 2026.
Any future payout would depend on the outcome of certification, the evidence, and court approval, and nobody can promise a figure. The sources reviewed do not state a damages amount the plaintiffs seek.
A collective certified for notice purposes is not a win. The court has described the 2025 certification as preliminary, and a later decertification ruling could require each plaintiff to proceed individually.
A successful ADEA claim can generally lead to remedies such as back pay and, for willful violations, an equal amount in liquidated damages, but those are legal categories and not a prediction of what anyone would receive here.
A website offering a Workday settlement claim form deserves caution, because the only court-authorized process so far was the opt-in notice, which has closed.
Workday Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
Here is the current status of the Workday lawsuit, updated with new filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. Litigation in the Mobley v. Workday AI hiring bias case remains active as of November 2026, with no bellwether trial or settlement completed. The timeline below tracks every confirmed development from the first filing forward.
Workday Lawsuit Timeline of Events
Magistrate Judge Beeler Allows 15 Declarant Depositions
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler reportedly ruled in Mobley v. Workday that Workday may question 15 of the 38 applicants who submitted declarations supporting class certification, instead of all 38. The reported schedule has the remote depositions taking place between October 15 and October 30, 2026, and the order concerns evidence gathering only, not whether Workday's tools discriminated.
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Comes Due
The court's July 2026 schedule required the Mobley v. Workday plaintiffs to file their class certification motion on September 14, 2026. A tracking service reports the motion seeks four subclasses covering Black, female, older, and disabled applicants, and Judge Rita F. Lin has not ruled on it.
Judge Lin Extends the Class Certification Schedule
Judge Rita F. Lin granted the Mobley v. Workday plaintiffs a two-month extension of the class certification deadlines after Workday produced three bias evaluation reports, which she said appear relevant to pivotal issues. The order sets Workday's opposition and motion to decertify for November 10, 2026 and the class certification hearing for March 9, 2027.
Order Implements the June 22 Ruling and Requires a Clean Complaint
Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order in Mobley v. Workday that put her June 22 ruling into effect, adopted modified strikes, and directed the plaintiffs to file a clean Fourth Amended Complaint. A legal-education summary identifies the order as ECF No. 372.
Judge Lin Largely Denies Workday's Motion on the Third Amended Complaint
Judge Rita F. Lin granted in part and denied in part Workday's motion to dismiss and strike parts of the Third Amended Complaint in Mobley v. Workday. California FEHA claims proceed, including for applicants outside California, a disability proxy theory survives, and a race-based Title VII claim added by another plaintiff and a direct-employer theory were dismissed or struck.
Opt-In Deadline for the Age Discrimination Collective Passes
The court-set deadline for applicants aged 40 and older to opt in to the Mobley v. Workday age discrimination collective passed on March 7, 2026. Sources reviewed do not report how many people opted in.
Court Rejects Workday's Argument That the ADEA Excludes Applicants
Judge Rita F. Lin rejected Workday's argument in Mobley v. Workday that the ADEA does not allow job applicants to bring disparate impact claims. The same order dismissed the California FEHA claims with leave to amend, and a legal-education summary identifies it as ECF No. 267.
Notice Authorized to Potential Collective Members
Plaintiffs' counsel in Mobley v. Workday announced on February 17, 2026 that the court had authorized notice to potential members of the age discrimination collective, with an opt-in deadline of March 7, 2026. The collective covers applicants aged 40 and older who applied through Workday's platform since September 24, 2020.
Order Brings HiredScore AI Features Into the Collective's Scope
Judge Rita F. Lin ruled in Mobley v. Workday that the preliminary collective includes people whose applications were scored, sorted, ranked, or screened using HiredScore AI features, called Spotlight and Fetch. Workday had argued HiredScore was a separate product acquired after the complaint, and the court left disputes about differences in the algorithms for the decertification stage.
Court Grants Preliminary Collective Certification
Judge Rita F. Lin granted preliminary certification of a nationwide ADEA collective in Mobley v. Workday, covering applicants aged 40 and over who applied through Workday's platform from September 24, 2020 to the present. The court said that allegedly widespread discrimination is not a basis for denying notice.
Court Denies Workday's Motion to Dismiss the Age Claim
The Northern District of California denied Workday's motion to dismiss the ADEA disparate impact claim in Mobley v. Workday, finding it plausible that employers delegate traditional hiring functions, including rejecting applicants, to Workday's algorithmic tools. The court's later orders cite this ruling as Docket No. 80.
Derek Mobley Files the Lawsuit
Derek Mobley filed Mobley v. Workday, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 21, 2023, alleging that Workday's AI-based applicant recommendation system discriminated against job applicants because of race, age, and disability.
How to File a Workday Lawsuit
Filing a Workday lawsuit typically follows the 6 steps below.
- Check whether you applied through Workday: Search your email and job accounts for application confirmations and automated rejections from employers that use Workday, because the collective covers applications made since September 24, 2020.
- Confirm your age at the time you applied: The age discrimination collective covers only applicants who were 40 or older when they applied.
- Find out whether you opted in: The court-authorized opt-in period has closed, and plaintiffs' counsel handled the notice, so check your email and records for a consent confirmation.
- Save your application and rejection records: Keep application dates, job postings, and rejection emails, since they show timing and which employers screened you.
- Ask an attorney about an EEOC charge: Age and disability claims generally require a charge with the EEOC before a lawsuit, usually within 180 days of the discriminatory act or 300 days in many states, and an attorney can say which deadline applies to you.
- Use only official sources for any claim form: No Workday settlement or claim form exists, so treat any website offering one with caution and rely on court filings or counsel of record.
Workday Lawsuit is no longer accepting new claims. The court-authorized opt-in period for the age discrimination collective closed on March 7, 2026, and no Workday settlement or claim form exists. A person who did not opt in is generally not part of the collective, though other legal options may exist depending on the facts.
What Does the Workday Lawsuit Say About Workday's Bias Testing?
The Workday lawsuit alleges that Workday's AI recommendation system discriminates, but the court has made no finding about what Workday knew or intended. A disparate impact claim focuses on the effect of a practice rather than on intent, so the case does not depend on proving Workday meant to discriminate.
Workday's own bias testing is an active discovery issue. In the July 13, 2026 order, the judge noted that Workday's recent production of three bias evaluation reports appears relevant to pivotal issues. Workday argues that its customers control whether the AI features are used, and that differences between its tools would defeat a collective.
The table below lists the parties and their reported roles.
| Party | Role | Reported Position |
|---|---|---|
| Derek Mobley | Lead plaintiff | Alleges he applied to more than 100 positions since 2017 and was denied every one |
| Opt-in plaintiffs | Plaintiffs who joined the age claim | Four stated in declarations that they were rejected nearly every time; 38 applicants reportedly submitted declarations for certification |
| Workday, Inc. | Sole defendant | Contests the claims, argues customers control its AI features, and denies the collective is similarly situated |
| Workday's employer customers | Not parties | Use Workday's recruiting tools; the court has not made them defendants |
| Plaintiffs' counsel | Counsel for the collective | Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb, LLC and Winston Cooks, LLC, both of Birmingham, Alabama |
How Does the Workday Lawsuit Compare to Other Workday Cases?
The Workday lawsuit differs from several other disputes that name Workday or involve similar AI hiring tools, and none of them is part of Mobley v. Workday. The payroll cases involve pay errors after a software rollout, and the Eightfold case targets a different company's AI hiring product.
| Matter | Subject | Relationship to This Case | Reported Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobley v. Workday, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) | AI hiring tools allegedly discriminating against applicants | This case | Pretrial; class certification hearing set for March 9, 2027 |
| Rhode Island state employees class action (Providence County Superior Court) | Late and missing paychecks after a Workday payroll rollout | Separate payroll dispute, not a hiring bias case | Reported May 18, 2026; outcome not verified here |
| Oregon state employee payroll suits (including an AFSCME suit) | Paycheck errors after Oregon's Workday payroll launch | Separate payroll dispute | AFSCME suit reported January 31, 2023; later wage settlements reported |
| Workday v. State of California | Workday's challenge to a lost payroll contract bid | Separate contract dispute where Workday is the plaintiff | Reported April 15, 2025; outcome not verified here |
| Kistler v. Eightfold AI Inc. | Fair Credit Reporting Act claims over an AI hiring platform's applicant scores | Different company and different statute, but a similar AI hiring theory | Proposed class action filed January 20, 2026; pleading stage reported |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Workday lawsuit about?
The Workday lawsuit is about whether Workday's AI-based applicant recommendation system discriminates against job applicants because of age, race, and disability. It is Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL in the Northern District of California, and Workday contests the claims.
Is the Workday lawsuit a class action?
The Workday lawsuit is a putative class action, and only its age discrimination claim has been preliminarily certified, as a nationwide opt-in collective action. The broader Rule 23 class and subclass certification motion remains undecided, with a hearing set for March 9, 2027.
How do I join the Workday class action lawsuit?
You can no longer join the Workday class action lawsuit's age discrimination collective by opting in, because the court-authorized opt-in period closed on March 7, 2026. A person who did not opt in is generally not part of the collective, and an employment attorney can explain whether other options such as an EEOC charge remain.
Has the Workday lawsuit settled?
No, the Workday lawsuit has not settled as of November 1, 2026, and no settlement fund or claim form exists. A trial date has not been set either, and the next scheduled milestone is the March 9, 2027 class certification hearing.
Who is the judge in the Workday lawsuit?
The judge in the Workday lawsuit is U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler handles discovery disputes, including the reported October 7, 2026 order on declarant depositions.
Did the court find that Workday discriminated?
No, the court has not found that Workday discriminated against anyone. Its rulings let claims proceed and certified a collective for notice purposes, but no merits judgment has been entered.
Is the Workday lawsuit the same as the Workday payroll lawsuits?
No, the Workday lawsuit over AI hiring is a different case from the payroll lawsuits against state and local governments. The payroll disputes involve pay errors after Workday software rollouts, while Mobley v. Workday concerns alleged discrimination in applicant screening.