Mobley v. Workday, Inc.
3:23-cv-00770
N.D. Cal.May 16, 2025Background
- Derek Mobley and four others over age 40 allege Workday, Inc.’s AI-powered job applicant recommendation system discriminates against applicants over 40 by causing widespread rejection without interviews.
- Plaintiffs claim a disparate impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), asserting that Workday’s AI features score, sort, and screen applicants in a manner leading to age-based bias.
- Mobley seeks preliminary (conditional) collective certification nationwide, allowing notice to similarly situated rejected applicants age 40 and above.
- Workday’s customers use its AI tools for screening, with some employers able to enable/disable features; plaintiffs allege the AI operates with employer biases and flawed training data.
- The court previously denied Workday’s motion to dismiss, having found a plausible claim that its AI tools participate in hiring decisions and create discriminatory disparities.
- The current procedural posture is a ruling on preliminary collective certification, which, if granted, allows broad notice to affected applicants but is not a merits determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for Preliminary Collective Certification | Should apply a liberal, plausibility-based standard. | Standard should become stricter due to amount of discovery exchanged. | Court applies standard "loosely akin to plausibility" regardless of discovery; no sliding scale. |
| Existence of Unified Discriminatory Policy | Workday’s AI recommendation system is a unified policy. | No uniform policy; employers can turn features on/off; effects vary. | Identification of unified policy (use of AI tool) suffices for collective certification at this stage. |
| Identification of Members/Notice Feasibility | Notice plan can be developed despite challenges. | Too hard to identify collective, collective is too large to manage. | Practical hurdles not grounds to deny notice; size/complexity insufficient to preclude certification. |
| Need for Individualized Inquiries | Disparate impact can be shown by common issues and evidence. | Individual member differences (qualifications, rejections) dominate. | Individual variation immaterial at this stage; shared injury (discriminatory AI) allows collective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2018) (articulates two-step analysis for FLSA collective actions; standard for preliminary certification is plausibility-based)
- Stockwell v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 749 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that identification of a uniform policy generating disparate impact supports class/collective treatment)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016) (failure of proof on a common question will defeat a collective, not require individualized adjudication)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (describes sufficiency of common questions for class actions in disparate impact cases)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (authorizes district courts to facilitate notice to potential collective members in large FLSA cases)