All Eyes on AI Discrimination Suit

In Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-770 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2024) (ECF No. 80), Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Workday’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint concerning allegations that Workday’s algorithm-based screening tools discriminated against applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability. This litigation has been closely watched for its novel case theory based on artificial intelligence use in making personnel decisions. For employers utilizing artificial intelligence in their hiring practices, tracking the developments in this cutting-edge case is paramount.  This ruling illustrates that employment screening vendors who utilize AI software may potentially be liable for discrimination claims as agents of employers.

Read the full post on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog.

4 Takeaways As Hiring Bias Suit Over Workday AI Proceeds

A closely watched discrimination lawsuit over software provider Workday’s artificial intelligence-powered hiring tools is headed into discovery after a California federal court ruled the company may be subject to federal antidiscrimination laws if its products make decisions on candidates. […]

Alex W. Karasik, a management-side attorney who is a partner at Duane Morris LLP and a member of the firm’s workplace class action group, said companies using or selling workplace-related AI tools need to track the Workday proceedings closely.

“This is definitely a case to watch, as it’s a landmark case involving the use of artificial intelligence and the hiring process,” he said. “Both employers and technology vendors, particularly those involved with artificial intelligence or algorithmic decision-making tools, absolutely need to pay attention to this case.”

He said [the] decision sets out critical guidelines for courts’ evaluations of who may be on the hook when a vendor of AI-based hiring tools faces allegations that its product churns out biased results. […]

Read the full article on the Law360 website (subscription may be required).

AI Updates at Legalweek

Privacy and data breach class action litigation, as well as AI issues, are among the key issues that keep businesses and corporate counsel up at night. There was over $1 billion procured in settlements and jury verdicts over the last year for these types of “bet-the-company” cases.  At the ALM Law.com Legalweek 2024 conference in New York City, Duane Morris partner Alex W. Karasik was a panelist at the session “Trends in US Data Privacy Laws and Enforcement.” The conference, which had over 6,000 attendees, produced excellent dialogues on how cutting-edge technologies can potentially lead to class action litigation.

Read more on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog.

Calif. Court Dismisses AI Suit Involving Discrimination

In Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-770 (N.D. Cal. Jan 19, 2024) (ECF No. 45), Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit against Workday involving allegations that algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability. With businesses more frequently relying on artificial intelligence to perform recruiting and hiring functions, this ruling is helpful for companies facing algorithm-based discrimination lawsuits in terms of potential strategies to attack such claims at the pleading stage.

Read more on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog.

New White House Executive Order Highlights Increased Complexity in AI Regulation – A Cross-Practice Overview

Section authors: Sandra A. Jeskie, Michelle Hon Donovan, Robert Carrillo, Ariel Seidner, Milagros Astesiano, Alex W. Karasik, Geoffrey M. Goodale, Neville M Bilimoria, Edward M. Cramp, Ted J. Chiappari, Kristopher Peters and M. Alejandra Vargas.

The White House’s October 30, 2023 Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (“EO”) signals increased governmental regulation over the development and use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) models.  While the United States currently does not have a comprehensive AI regulation regime, many federal government agencies already regulate the use and development of AI through a complex framework of rules and regulations.  President Biden’s EO promises to add a new layer of complexity by introducing sweeping changes affecting a wide variety of industries.  Duane Morris’ multi-disciplinary team of AI attorneys are ready to help clients working with AI tools abreast of new regulations in this rapidly-evolving area of law.  Below, we summarize the most significant changes stemming from the White House’s most recent AI EO.

Continue reading “New White House Executive Order Highlights Increased Complexity in AI Regulation – A Cross-Practice Overview”

Webinar: Get Smart with AI: Best Practices for Using AI in Business

Duane Morris will present Get Smart with AI: Best Practices for Using AI in Business, a webinar on the benefits, risks and mitigation strategies for using AI in business, on Tuesday, October 17, 2023, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern.

REGISTER

About the Program

The AI revolution has already begun. To remain competitive in the AI era, businesses must learn and adapt as quickly as AI technology does. Topics include: introduction to AI; global response to AI including relevant laws and initiatives; possible uses of AI in business; and specific AI risks and mitigation strategies for copyright and IP rights and ownership issues, privacy and security compliance, employment law compliance, scraping of business data, and other takeaways. 

Speakers

    • Sandra A. Jeskie
    • John M. Benjamin
    • Matthew C. Mousley
    • Luke P. McLoughlin
    • Jennifer M. Lantz
    • Alex W. Karasik

Learn more about the event and Duane Morris’ artificial intelligence team.

AI Software Settlement Highlights Risk in Hiring Decisions

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. ITutorGroup, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-CV-2565 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2023), the EEOC and a tutoring company filed a Joint Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, memorializing a $365,000 settlement for claims involving hiring software that automatically rejected applicants based on their age. This is first EEOC settlement involving artificial intelligence (“AI”) software bias.

Read more on the Class Action Defense Blog.

AI Tools in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act

On July 26, 2023, the EEOC issued a new Guidance entitled “Visual Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” (the “Guidance”).  This document is an excellent resource for employers, and provides insight into how to handle situations that may arise with job applicants and employees that have visual disabilities. Notably, for employers that use algorithms or artificial intelligence (“AI”) as a decision-making tool, the Guidance makes clear that employers have an obligation to make reasonable accommodations for applicants or employees with visual disabilities who request them in connection with these technologies.

Read more on the Class Action Defense Blog.

 

Employer Guidance for Preventing Discrimination When Using AI

On May 18, 2023, the EEOC released a technical assistance document, “Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” (hereinafter, the “Resource”) to provide employers guidance on preventing discrimination when utilizing artificial intelligence. For employers who are contemplating whether to use artificial intelligence in employment matters such as selecting new employees, monitoring performance, and determining pay or promotions, this report is a “must-read” in terms of implementing safeguards to comply with civil rights laws.

Read more on the Class Action Defense Blog.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress