Court Orders Workday to Disclose Employers Using HiredScore AI in Hiring
Summary:
On July 29, 2025, a federal judge in the Northern District of California issued a critical order in the ongoing case Mobley v. Workday, Inc., requiring Workday Inc. to turn over a full list of employers that enabled HiredScore’s AI features—tools used to score, sort, rank, or screen job applicants.
This ruling comes amid a broader class action brought by Derek Mobley, a Black job seeker over 40 with anxiety and depression, who alleges Workday’s AI-powered hiring tools systematically rejected hundreds of applications across companies using its software. The case argues that these tools produce a disparate impact on older, disabled, and minority applicants, potentially violating Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Earlier rulings allowed parts of the case to proceed:
-
In July 2024, the court denied Workday’s motion to dismiss, allowing disparate impact claims under both federal anti-discrimination law and California FEHA to move forward. The court accepted the theory that Workday may be treated as an agent/employer when customers delegate screening decisions to its system.
-
In May 2025, the court granted conditional collective certification of the ADEA claim, potentially notifying millions of job applicants, based on allegations that Workday processed over 1.1 billion rejected applications during the relevant period.
The July 29 ruling emphasized that HiredScore, acquired by Workday after the lawsuit was filed, cannot be excluded from the scope of the collective action. Workday’s argument that HiredScore functions on a different technical stack was rejected, as the judge found that applicants subjected to any AI-driven scoring process fall within the class, irrespective of the specific product brand.
Workday must now submit a customer list to the court by August 20, 2025, identifying organizations that enabled the HiredScore AI feature during the class period—even if Workday asserts no scoring occurred for some employers—subject to narrow exceptions.
This disclosure order significantly expands the litigation’s reach and may enable identification of additional plaintiffs. It also places vendor responsibility and transparency at the center of the debate over algorithmic hiring—and raises regulatory alarms as more jurisdictions prepare AI hiring legislation.
⚖️ Key Legal Outcomes
-
Judge ordered Workday to disclose all employers that enabled HiredScore AI features.
-
Applicants scored, sorted, ranked, or screened using HiredScore are included in the collective action.
-
HiredScore cannot be excluded even though it was acquired post‑complaint.
-
Workday must identify customers by August 20, 2025.
-
Expands potential class size to applicants impacted by AI features across multiple employers.
💡 Why It Matters
-
Establishes precedent on vendor liability and transparency in AI hiring tools.
-
Reinforces that acquisitions don’t shield companies from continued legal exposure.
-
Signals stricter scrutiny of the AI hiring ecosystem by regulators and courts.
-
Employers and HR teams must review reliance on opaque scoring algorithms.
-
Heightens urgency for bias audits and compliance strategies under emerging AI laws.
Outlet & Publication Date
The People Space (reporting on legal ruling) — Published August 3, 2025 thepeoplespace.comThe McKinney Law Firm, P.C.
Tags
workday, hiredscore, ai hiring, age discrimination, mobley v workday, collective action, algorithmic bias, vendor liability
