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).

© 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