Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. – Class Action Defense

June 24, 2026June 24, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

California Federal Court Grants In Part And Denies In Part Workday’s Motion To Dismiss In Mobley v. Workday

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Adam D. Brown, and Elizabeth G. Underwood

Duane Morris Takeaways: In the closely watched AI-related litigation entitled Mobley, et al. v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-CV-00770 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2026) (ECF No. 360), Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order denying in part and granting in part Workday’s motion to dismiss. The Court denied Workday’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims, holding that Plaintiffs adequately alleged a nexus to California because Workday allegedly designs, develops, and operates its algorithmic screening tools from its California headquarters. Id. at 3-4. The Court also denied the motion as to one of the plaintiffs’ Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim, determining that her new proxy-discrimination factual allegations fell within the scope of a prior order granting leave to amend to address certain deficiencies in a prior iteration of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, despite Workday’s argument to the contrary. Id. at 8. However, the Court granted Workday’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff Rowe’s newly asserted race-based disparate impact claim because Rowe did not seek leave to add a race-based claim, and therefore Rowe could not add this claim to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Id. at 9.

For employers and AI vendors defending against AI employment discrimination claims, this decision provides important guidance on how defendants can successfully move to strike unauthorized claims and legal theories that exceed the scope of court-granted leave to amend.

This development follows the Court’s previous Discovery Order, which we blogged on here, Workday’s unsuccessful Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which we blogged about here, Workday’s first successful Motion to Dismiss, which we blogged on here, and the EEOC’s amicus brief filing, which we blogged about here.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Derek Mobley, Jill Hughes, Sheilah Johnson-Rocha, and FaithLinh Rowe brought this action against Workday, alleging that Workday’s algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against them and other similarly situated job applicants based on race, age, and disability. Id. at 1. After the Court ruled on two rounds of motions to dismiss, Mobley proceeded on claims for disparate impact discrimination based on race under Title VII, disability under the ADA, and age under the ADEA. Id. at 1-2.

On November 12, 2025, Mobley sought leave to file a further amended complaint adding three new named plaintiffs and claims for sex-based discrimination under Title VII and sex-based, race-based, and age-based discrimination under the FEHA. Id. at 2. The Court found good cause for the late amendment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. Id. Workday moved to dismiss the resulting Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and the motion was granted in part and denied in part. Id. Plaintiffs were given leave to remedy deficiencies in their FEHA claims, which lacked allegations of a nexus to California, and Hughes was given leave to amend her ADA claim. Id. Plaintiffs then filed a TAC. Id.

Subsequently, Workday filed a motion to dismiss and to strike portions of the TAC, arguing Plaintiffs’ FEHA claims failed to plead a non-conclusory nexus between the alleged misconduct and California, and that the other amendments were unauthorized because they fell outside the scope of Plaintiffs’ leave to amend. Id. at 1.

The Court’s Decision

The decision addressed several issues.

Plaintiffs’ FEHA Claims Were Plausibly Asserted

First, the Court denied Workday’s motion to dismiss the FEHA claims, finding that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Workday, whose principal place of business is in California, participated in the alleged misconduct from its California headquarters. Id. at 3. The TAC alleged that Workday’s tools were “designed, developed, maintained, and controlled from [Workday’s] California headquarters” and that the “screening, scoring, and rejection” of Plaintiffs’ applications “originate[d] in and [was] carried out from California.” Id. at 4. The Court reasoned that the TAC adequately alleged “material participation in the allegedly unlawful discriminatory employment decisions by an actor (Workday, through its algorithmic decision-making tools) in California.” Id.

The Court rejected Workday’s argument that its liability as an agent under the FEHA must turn on the liability of its customers, relying on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Grp., 534 P.3d 40 (Cal. 2023). Id. Under Raines, Workday is not subject to derivative liability based on its employer-customer’s liability but instead “is directly liable for its ‘own engagement in FEHA-regulated activities on the employer’s behalf.’” Id. (quoting Raines, 534 P.3d at 53).

The Court also rejected Workday’s contention that applying the FEHA to its California-based conduct would amount to an impermissible extraterritorial application, reasoning that wrongful conduct within California’s borders is not properly understood as “extraterritorial” regardless of where an aggrieved worker resides. Id. at 5-7.

Plaintiff Hughes’s Amended ADA Claim Was Permissible

Second, the Court denied Workday’s motion as to the permissibility of Plaintiff Hughes’s ADA claim. Id. at 8. The TAC alleged that “algorithmic hiring tools can identify and rely upon [ ] proxy indicators of illness or health-related limitations” such as “medical-related leave, or patterns consistent with treatment and recovery,” and “can disproportionately flag and screen out such applicants based on inferred health status rather than job-related qualifications.” Id. The Court rejected Workday’s argument that the Court had not authorized new theories of proxy discrimination for physical disabilities, reasoning that the additional allegations were squarely within the scope of the leave to amend. Id.

Plaintiff Rowe’s Race-Based Disparate Impact Claim Was Dismissed

Third, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Rowe’s race-based disparate impact claim under Title VII, which sought for the first time to assert discrimination based on her race as an Asian American. Id. at 9. The Court reasoned that the Second Amended Complaint did not contain such a claim and that Plaintiffs had not previously sought or received authorization to add the claim, as the prior race-related allegations were limited to African American and Black applicants. Id.

Plaintiffs’ Direct-Employer Theory Was Stricken

Finally, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ new legal theory that Workday is liable as an employer because it used the challenged recruitment and hiring procedures in screening and selecting its own employees, explaining that this legal theory was unauthorized. Id. at 10.

Implications For Employers

This decision highlights that companies developing and operating AI-driven hiring tools in and/or from California may be subject to the FEHA for their own California-based conduct, even when the affected applicants reside and apply for jobs out of state.

Moreover, the Court’s treatment of the amendments to the complaint underscores the importance of carefully observing the scope of court-granted leave to amend. While the Court permitted new proxy-discrimination allegations supporting an existing ADA claim, the Court dismissed and struck a new race-based theory and a new direct-employer theory that exceeded the scope of the amendments the Court had authorized, illustrating that plaintiffs cannot use amendments to incorporate entirely new claims or theories without leave.

June 22, 2026June 22, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

No Retake Allowed: New York Federal Court Denies EEOC’s Motion For Reconsideration In Equal Pay Act Case Against School District

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Olga A. Romadin, and Elizabeth G. Underwood

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 18, 2026, Judge Anthony J. Brindisi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the EEOC’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order denying cross-motions for summary judgment in EEOC v. Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, No. 1:21-CV-00352, 2026 WL 1759441 (N.D.N.Y. June 18, 2026). The district court found that the EEOC failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration, reasoning that the EEOC had not identified an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error warranting relief.

This ruling is significant for employers defending Equal Pay Act claims and reinforces the high burden parties must satisfy to obtain reconsideration, namely, that a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old issues or present evidence that was previously available.

Case Background

On March 26, 2021, the EEOC filed this action against the Hunter-Tannersville Central School District (“District”) alleging that the District violated § 206(d)(1) of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by paying a former District superintendent, Dr. Susan T. Vickers (“Vickers”), less than her male colleagues for substantially equal work. Id. at *1. In response, the District denied the allegations and raised a statutory affirmative defense, asserting that any alleged pay disparity resulted from factors other than sex under 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)(iv). Id.

After several years of discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Id. The Court denied both motions, finding that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of either party. Id. The EEOC then timely moved for reconsideration, which the District opposed. Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court ultimately denied the EEOC’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying cross-motions for summary judgment. Id.

First, the EEOC argued that the Court had erroneously accepted certain facts as undisputed after overlooking contrary evidence, specifically a deposition exhibit that the EEOC admittedly did not submit with its prior motion papers. Id. However, the Court rejected this argument for two reasons. Id. The omitted deposition exhibit did not qualify as “new evidence” because it was readily available at the time of the earlier briefing. Id. Moreover, the EEOC did not show that the omitted evidence was inconsistent with any of the challenged findings. Id. at *2.

Next, the EEOC contended that the Court misapplied Second Circuit precedent on the question of substantial equivalence. Id. The Court disagreed, explaining that the Second Circuit has made clear that “[w]hether two positions are ‘substantially equivalent’ for Equal Pay Act purposes is a question for the jury.” Id. (quoting Lavin-McEleney v. Marist Coll., 239 F.3d 476, 480 (2d Cir. 2001)). In particular, the Court determined that the EEOC did not show a clear error in the Court’s application of the law because the “expansive record” included “sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Vickers’ comparators had different or additional job responsibilities and performance requirements.” Id.

The EEOC also argued that the Court failed to require the District to “prove” that the pay disparities between Vickers and her comparators stemmed from gender-neutral factors. Id. at *3. The Court, however, determined that the EEOC’s argument misunderstood the relative burdens on a motion for summary judgment. Id. While the District would have needed to “prove” its affirmative defense as a matter of law to succeed on its own motion, to survive the EEOC’s motion and get to trial, “the District was only required to identify sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that ‘the pay disparity in question result[ed] from a differential based on any factor except for sex.’” Id. (quoting Eisenhauer v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 84 F.4th 507, 522–23 (2d Cir. 2023)). The Court found the District met that standard. Id.

Finally, the Court rejected the EEOC’s argument that the Court failed to apply the law requiring the District to prove that longevity and negotiation were gender-neutral factors. Id. In rejecting the EEOC’s argument, the Court noted that the EEOC cited no controlling authority for the proposition that longevity and negotiations cannot constitute factors other than sex, identifying several courts within the Second Circuit that have found such factors to be legitimate factors other than sex. Id.

Because the Court declined to reconsider its earlier ruling, the Court indicated that the EEOC’s contingent requests regarding the issues of willfulness, good faith, and damages were rendered moot. Id. at *4.

Implications For Employers

The Court’s decision underscores that motions for reconsideration are subject to a demanding standard and cannot be used as a second opportunity to relitigate issues or present evidence that was available during an earlier round of briefing.

This decision also reinforces that the question of whether two job positions are “substantially equivalent” under the Equal Pay Act is a fact-intensive inquiry properly reserved for a jury, and that shared job descriptions alone do not establish substantial equivalence as a matter of law. Id. at *2.

Lastly, the Court’s analysis confirms that longevity and salary negotiations remain viable “factors other than sex” under the Equal Pay Act in the Second Circuit. Id. at *3. Employers should therefore document the legitimate, gender-neutral factors underlying compensation decisions to support a potential affirmative defense in the event of an Equal Pay Act challenge.

June 22, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Third Circuit’s FLSA Overtime Gap Time Decision Opens Up Circuit Split

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and Olga A. Romadin

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 3, 2026, addressing an issue of first impression on overtime gap time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in U.S. Department of Labor v. Comprehensive Healthcare Mgmt. Servs. LLC, No. 24-2842, 2026 WL 1582064 (3d Cir. June 3, 2026), partially reversed an order of a district court that had awarded damages to the U.S. Department of Labor(“DOL”), which had brought a lawsuit on behalf of 6,000 healthcare employees, alleging various overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC (“Comprehensive”). On appeal, Comprehensive argued that the district court had erred in finding that the FLSA affords a remedy for overtime gap time claims, which address non-overtime hours in a non-exempt employee’s workweek, as well as misapplied a lower burden of proof to some of the claims against it, had erred in its finding that certain employees were nonexempt, and in some of its factual findings. The Third Circuit agreed with the employer in part, and vacated and remanded the matter to the district court.

Case Background

In 2018, the DOL brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against fifteen nursing and assisted living entities owned and operated by Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC and its chief executive officer, alleging that the defendants had failed to pay hourly employees for all hours worked and the appropriate rate of pay, as well as failing to keep accurate pay records in violation of the FLSA. Id. at *1. One of the claims involved overtime gap time, which occurs when an employee who exceeds the overtime threshold does not receive pay for all non-overtime hours worked. Id.

In January 2024, the district court held a bench trial, following which it ruled in favor of the DOL, finding that there were “system errors” in the calculation of pay. Id. at *2. The district court explained that the defendants’ timekeeping system had not kept an accurate record of employees’ working hours, and Comprehensive paid employees for scheduled hours instead of hours they actually worked, as well as that the system automatically deducted meal breaks, even if employees had worked through them, and that the defendants had failed to accurately pay overtime wages. Id. The district court found that employees were not paid the required one-and-one-half regular rate required under the FLSA, and that the regular rate did not include pay that was required to be calculated in it, including shift differentials, bonuses, and other types of pay. Id. The district court also concluded that some employees had been improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. Id. The district court, noting that the Third Circuit had not yet ruled upon the “viability of overtime gap time claims,” nonetheless awarded $35,804,438.20 in damages against Comprehensive for these violations. Id. at *3. Comprehensive appealed.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

On appeal, Comprehensive argued that the district court had erred in finding that claims for overtime gap time were cognizable under the FLSA. Id. at *3. The Third Circuit noted a disagreement among the circuits, with the Second Circuit having opined that overtime gap time claims were not cognizable under the FLSA in Lundy v. Cath. Health Sys. Of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 115-17 (2d Cir. 2013), while the Fourth Circuit found that they were in Conner v. Cleveland County, 22 F.4th 412, 426 (4th Cir. 2022). Id. Writing for the majority in a split panel decision, Third Circuit Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares explained that “[w]hen the statutory language is clear, the text is the beginning and the end of our inquiry.” Id. at *4. On review of the text of the FLSA, the appellate court found no mention of overtime gap time and concluded that the statute does not provide a remedy to overtime gap claims. Id. In finding that there was no support in the text of the statute for an overtime gap claims, the court of appeals rejected the Labor Secretary’s argument that under § 207 of the FLSA, the term “regular rate” contemplates an overtime requirement, and so requires that a regular rate must be paid for all hours worked. Id. Further, the Third Circuit was unconvinced by the Secretary’s reference to the DOL’s guidance, which stated that overtime under the FLSA requires the payment of all straight time worked during non-overtime hours, finding that this ran counter to the unambiguous text of the Act. Id. at *4-5. Finally, agreeing with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Third Circuit determined that individuals seeking to bring such claims could do so under state laws. Id. at *5. Thus, agreeing with Comprehensive, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling finding that Comprehensive had violated the FLSA by failing to compensate certain employees for overtime gap time. Id.

In reviewing the remaining arguments brought by Comprehensive, the Third Circuit court found that the district court did not err in applying a lower evidentiary burden to the claims against Comprehensive under the Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) burden-shifting framework, where an employee alleging an employer failed to keep adequate records may do so by producing sufficient evidence prior to the burden being shifted to the employer to counter the claims. Id. at *5-6. Noting that the district court based its findings on the time and pay records produced by Comprehensive, the appellate court concluded that “Mt. Clemens did not affect the analysis for these claims.” Id. at *6. The Third Circuit also found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings or finding of an ongoing pattern or practice of regular rate miscalculation, writing that the single witness that Comprehensive had produced in support of its contention that employees were paid for all hours worked instead of based on their scheduled hours was found to be unreliable by the district court, and that the Secretary of Labor had produced more concrete proof in the form of an investigation, and documentary proof corroborated by hundreds of employees. Id. Next, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding that employees at different facilities were regularly not paid for work performed through meal breaks based on a representative sample of employee testimony and the testimony of the company’s regional consultant. Id. at *7.

Finally, the Third Circuit agreed with Comprehensive that the district court’s determination that certain employees were not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements was an error because it had applied the “plain and unmistakable” burden of proof to its analysis, but under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U.S. 79 (2018), an employer seeking to prove an employee’s exempt status does so by a preponderance of the evidence, and vacated the part of the lower court’s decision and remanded it for further proceedings. Id. at *8-9.

In a partial dissent, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jane R. Roth wrote that the text of the FLSA “is far from clear,” and the case law defining a regular rate offered additional confusion that could be addressed by making the actual rate, contracted rate, and regular rate of pay to be the same, aligning with the Fourth Circuit decision in Conner and the U.S. Department of Labor guidance that the majority declined to endorse. Id. at *10-11.

Implications For Employers

Employers with a workforce falling under the FLSA should take heed in ensuring that exempt employees, such as those working in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity, meet the statutory minimums such as salary requirements to qualify as bona fide exempt from overtime requirements. Maintaining accurate pay and time records for exempt and non-exempt workers and conducting regular audits may serve well in defending against miscalculation allegations, as the appellate court here confirmed the lower court’s conclusion based on records provided by the company.

This federal appellate court decision further signals a circuit split on the issue of whether overtime gap time claims are cognizable under the FLSA, with the Third Circuit here joining the Second Circuit in deciding that under the plain meaning of the text they are not, while the Fourth Circuit maintains that the FLSA does offer relief for plaintiffs seeking to bring such claims.

June 17, 2026June 17, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog’s 700th Post!

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways: Since its inception in September of 2022, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense blog has posted 700 times! There have been over 100,000 views to blog posts, with thousands of people reading about class action litigation developments. There are so many highlights from the last 700 posts, but we wanted to provide just a few for you here. Click on the links below to see all the hot trends in class action litigation.

We launched the third edition of the Duane Morris Class Action Review, which is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting Corporate America. The Review has been prominently featured in the media and is a must-have for all human resources professionals and corporate counsel.

We also published mini-books focused on specialized areas of law (including ERISA, Products Liability & Mass Torts, FCRA, Discrimination, Consumer Fraud, Antitrust, TCPA, Data Breach and Privacy, Wage & Hour and PAGA, and EEOC and Government-Enforcement), various unique industries (including Higher Education, Insurance, Energy, Oil, & Gas, Transportation, Automotive, & Logistics, Healthcare, Hospitality, and Digital Assets & Blockchain), and state-specific laws in class action litigation and on EEOC-Initiated litigation.

Every week on the blog, we feature attorneys and experts discussing the latest class action developments and rulings on the Class Action Weekly Wire Podcast. Tune in each week for a new episode! Some of the most popular podcasts were featuring the dismissal of a class action in a data breach area, a discussion on the California’s Supreme Court’s win for employers, and the overview of class action litigation in the digital assets and blockchain sector.

Click here to read our most viewed blog post of 2026, entitled “AI Hallucinated Case Citations Prompt Sanctions And Delay Class Action Settlement.” Over 2,000 people read this post! Other top reads included our analysis of a 2024 ruling in Illinois dismissing class action privacy claims, an overview of the American Tort Reform Association’s picks for the top Judicial Hellholes in 2025, and our always sought-after annual blog post covering the developments in EEOC FY Filings.

Thank you, loyal followers, for making the Class Action Defense blog your stop for class action litigation related information, trends, and analysis. We truly appreciate it! Please keep coming back, we promise to keep the content fresh and informative!

June 10, 2026June 10, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment For Tortilla Manufacturer El Milagro In Sexual Harassment Suit

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Gregory Tsonis, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 27, 2026, in Sanchez, v. El Milagro, Inc., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14984 (7th Cir. May 26, 2026), the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that affirmed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of tortilla manufacturer El Milagro, Inc. (“El Milagro”) for claims of sexual harassment in the workplace in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”).

The opinion fully vindicated the Company’s defenses, and clarifies that a prompt and thorough investigation coupled with appropriate action to bring harassment to an end are crucial to avoid liability under sexual harassment law.

Background

In 2022, Plaintiff Alma Sanchez filed a Class Action Complaint against her employer, El Milagro, Inc. (“El Milagro”), a tortilla manufacturer and distributor of tortilla products, alleging a sexually hostile work environment in violation of the IHRA and, subsequently, Title VII.

Plaintiff alleged she joined El Milagro in July 2019. Plaintiff claimed that in 2020, co-worker Francisco Gutierrez sexually harassed her by “inappropriately touching her three times,” although the Seventh Circuit’s opinion noted that Plaintiff’s version of events changed in numerous ways over time. Id.

According to the subsequent statement to Human Resources that Plaintiff submitted after the third alleged incident, Gutierrez “inappropriately touched [Plaintiff] first in October or November 2019, then in March 2020, and finally in August 2020.” Id. *4-5. Her Complaint, however, alleged that “Gutierrez touched her first in May or June 2020, then in July 2020, and finally in August 2020.” Id. *5.

As to her first alleged incident of harassment, Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted that Gutierrez “intentionally ‘rubbed his genitals’ against her buttocks as he passed her on the production line and then continued to walk away.” Id. In her deposition, however, Plaintiff testified that “she believe[d] Gutierrez purposefully touched her because ‘there were many ways for him to pass through without touching [her],” that he did not “touch her for long because ‘he made it look like he was passing by,’” and when she felt the contact and turned around “[h]e had already passed.” Id. In her later statement to Human Resources, Plaintiff wrote that Gutierrez “said sorry” but at her deposition, she testified that Gutierrez “turned around and stare[d] at me like watching and saying ‘oops.’” Id. *5-6.

Plaintiff alleged she verbally reported this incident two hours later to Supervisor Arturo Brito, which Brito denied. Id. *6. In her HR statement, Plaintiff “stated that although she mentioned this incident to Brito, she did not tell him Gutierrez’s name.” At her deposition, however, Plaintiff claimed that “she ‘specifically told Brito that Mr. Gutierrez had rubbed his genitals on my buttocks’” but, when asked outright, she “agreed that she did not share Gutierrez’s name with [the supervisor] when she reported the first incident.” Id. No Human Resources report was made about this incident at the time.

Plaintiff also asserted Gutierrez “sexually harassed her for the second time in July 2020” and claimed that he “groped her buttock with his hand.” Id. *6-7. Plaintiff contradicted herself about whether and when she reported this incident. In her HR statement, she wrote that she “could not have reported the incident because the factory had been permanently shut down because of the pandemic, but later claimed in the lawsuit that she did report the harassment to Brito the day after it happened. Id. *7. Plaintiff alleged that she informed Brito about this incident, but no complaint about this alleged incident was sent to El Milagro’s Human Resources department. Id.

The third incident occurred on August 29, 2020, and Plaintiff contended that “Gutierrez touched her buttocks for ‘a short time,’ or ‘a few seconds’ while she was stooping down to put down boxes that she was holding.” Id. In her written statement to HR, Plaintiff claimed that “Gutierrez touched her buttocks with one hand” but asserted during the lawsuit that “Gutierrez groped her with both hands when she bent over to put down a box that she was carrying.” Id.

After reporting the third incident to Brito, Plaintiff submitted a written statement to Human Resources describing the three incidents. Gutierrez’s statement claimed he accidentally touched Plaintiff while packing tortillas and apologized. Id. Plaintiff later testified that she “had not seen anyone else experience sexually harassing conduct at any time during her employment at El Milagro.” Id. Plaintiff also alleged subsequent verbal harassment by other coworkers, but Plaintiff did not tell Brito or El Milagro’s HR the names of those individuals. Id. *9.

The district court granted El Milagro summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. It also ruled that Plaintiffs’ class action claims could not be certified. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision on her individual claim to the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit’s Opinion

The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Kenneth F. Ripple, affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of El Milagro and fully vindicated its position.

As to the controlling legal standard, the Seventh Circuit first concluded that while Title VII and the IHRA do not contain identical language, “both this court and Illinois state courts consistently state that the analytical standards are the same.” Id. *9. Thus, “[t]o constitute actionable sexual harassment, the activity ‘must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. *10. While noting that “physical acts are considered ‘more severe than harassing comments alone,’” the Court also noted that “physical harassment lies along a continuum just as verbal harassment does.” Id. *12.

Turning to the merits, the Seventh Circuit noted an employer is liable under the IHRA and Title VII “only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions.” To prove such negligence, the Seventh Circuit explained Plaintiff must establish two points: (1) that El Milagro had “notice or knowledge of the harassment,” and (2) that El Milagro “did not take ‘prompt and appropriate corrective action reasonably likely to prevent harassment from recurring.” Id. *16.

Assuming that Plaintiff reported the first two incidents to Brito, as she claimed, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiff could not establish El Milagro’s knowledge of the first two incidents of alleged harassment. Based on the record evidence, the Court reasoned that “what she told Brito led him to believe that she was complaining of accidental touching that happened because the production lines on which she and Gutierrez worked had close quarters.” Id. at *21. As a result, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “[w]e do not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude from [Plaintiff’s] deposition testimony, or any other evidence in the record related to her reporting of the first two incidents, that she gave Brito ‘enough information to make a reasonable employer think that there was some probability that she was being sexually harassed.’” Id. *20-21.

As to the third incident, all three judges agreed that investigation and corrective measures taken by El Milagro’s Human Resources department were sufficient. The Seventh Circuit noted that “[a]n HR employee interviewed [Plaintiff] and Gutierrez separately,” “HR concluded that the events described by [Plaintiff] could not be substantiated,” and that El Milagro “provided [Plaintiff] with a letter, dated September 16, informing her that the case was closed and that it had told Gutierrez, in a ‘call of attention’ letter, to immediately change his behavior toward her.” Id. *21-22. The Seventh Circuit also determined that “[a]lthough El Milagro did not interview any witnesses, [Plaintiff] did not identify any.” Id. *22.

Thus, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the “prompt investigation” was “the hallmark of a reasonable corrective action” (id.) and that “El Milagro’s investigation shows that it ‘took the harassment seriously and took appropriate steps to bring the harassment to an end.’ . . . [i]t had in place a viable and appropriate mechanism for reporting the misbehavior.” Id. A jury could not reasonably conclude, the Seventh Circuit held, that “El Milagro was negligent in fulfilling its responsibilities in responding to the situation.” Id.

Finally, as to alleged verbal harassment that occurred after HR investigated, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiff “did not report to anyone the names of the people who made the harassing comments that she overheard after the investigation concluded so El Milagro could not investigate them.” Id.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Implications For Employers

The Seventh Circuit’s opinion clarifies what constitutes proper notice in alleged incidents of sexual harassment and reasonable corrective measures taken when an employer is properly on notice, including prompt investigations to bring alleged harassment to an end.

Employers should evaluate their sexual harassment policies and practices to ensure that reporting mechanisms, documentation, and investigation process are sound and that reports of harassment are communicated promptly to those responsible for investigating them. A thorough investigation and quick implementation of reasonable corrective measures can often insulate employers from liability under either Title VII or the IHRA.

June 5, 2026June 5, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

President Trump’s New National Enforcement Program For The EEOC And What It Means For Employers

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) announced its National Enforcement Plan (the “NEP”) for fiscal years 2025 – 2029. The NEP reflects the EEOC’s new priorities under President Donald Trump and formally rescinds the agency’s strategic objections during President Joseph Biden’s administration.

Employers should take note of this development as it is clear that the NEP signals a forthcoming crackdown on: (1) employers’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs; (2) instances of “anti-American” bias; (3) efforts to limit “single-sex spaces” for transgender individuals; and (4) failures to provide religious accommodations.

The EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan

As readers of this blog will know, the EEOC looks and acts differently under President Trump than it did under President Biden. President Biden’s strategic priorities, which we wrote about here, here, and here, largely focused on discrimination resulting from the use of artificial intelligence, preventing systemic harassment, enforcing equal pay obligations, and protecting historically marginalized groups. President Trump’s EEOC is a lot different.

On June 4, 2026, the EEOC’s Chair Andrea Lucas (R) and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio (R) rolled out the agency’s new NEP over the objection of Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal (D). The NEP describes the agency’s areas of strategic focus because “it is not feasible for the [EEOC] to devote the same amount of resources to each charge.” (NEP at 2.) Thus, “the agency must continue to be strategic about the matters it prioritizes to maximize the agency’s impact.” (Id.) To that end, the EEOC identified four major areas where it intends to be more proactive in its enforcement efforts, each of which is discussed more fully below.

First, the EEOC stated an explicit intention to attempt to “[r]emedy[] DEI-related race and sex discrimination.” (Id. at 6.) In particular, the EEOC cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025), Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) as the basis for its decision. As a result, we expect to see continued efforts from President Trump’s administration to crackdown on DEI programs both in the workplace and in higher education.

Second, the EEOC states that it plans to prosecute claims with an intent to “protect[] American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination.” (NEP at 6.) This prosecutorial decision tracks with last year’s first-of-its-kind settlement against LeoPalace Resort, which we blogged about here, where a group of American workers alleged that they were subject to less favorable treatment than their Japanese colleagues. We can also expect these enforcement actions to continue throughout the second Trump administration.

Third, the EEOC intends to ensure access for women to “single-sex spaces at work” due to the “binary nature of sex.” (Id.) This objective continues to signal a rollback of President Biden’s efforts to enforce protections in favor of transgender workers, and tracks with the agency’s decision last year to dismiss all lawsuits seeking to enforce such protections. As readers will recall, we blogged about the decision to dismiss these lawsuits here because they were purportedly based on “gender ideology extremism.” This area is one where there is the potential for a significant uptick in EEOC enforcement actions and investigations.

Fourth, the EEOC stated its continued commitment to “religious liberty rights” including the right “to receive religious accommodations and be free from religious discrimination, harassment, and related retaliation.” (Id.) As we explained here, however, employers can expect certain types of religious bias to be policed more heavily than others. In accordance with President Trump’s policy platform, EEOC Chair Lucas has explicitly cited “antisemitism” as the basis for the current emphasis on religious discrimination. This enforcement priority tracks with recent appellate court decisions, such as EEOC v. Center One, LLC, No. 22-2943, 2024 WL 379956, at *4 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2024), where the Third Circuit held that forcing an employer to work on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah could create “’intolerable’ conditions of discrimination.” Thus, the EEOC is signaling its intent to continue to build on precedent like Center One in the religious discrimination space.

Implications For Employers

Employers should take note of these enforcement priorities as it previews the types of cases that the EEOC intends to pursue both through investigations and litigation. Thus, if they have not already, corporate counsel should consider whether any revisions are necessary to their organization’s DEI programs as well as to any policies concerning differential treatment provided based on national origin, sex, or religion.

Further, if an organization receives notice of an EEOC charge or subpoena – particularly one targeting a pattern, practice, or policy based on the above-mentioned objectives – it should take such allegations extremely seriously and contact experienced counsel to help them navigate the process.

June 5, 2026June 5, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Colorado Federal Court Denies EEOC Application To Enforce Administrative Subpoenas Against Psychological Testing Firm In Discrimination Investigation

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 3, 2026, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Psychological Dimensions, No. 1:26-MC-00072 (D. Colo. June 3, 2026), Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the EEOC’s application for an order to show cause as to why two administrative subpoenas served on Psychological Dimensions should not be enforced. The EEOC sought information regarding a pre-offer psychological assessment administered to job applicants for the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office. The Court concluded that the subpoenas sought information that had nothing to do with the discrimination allegedly suffered by the charging party and declined to hold that the EEOC’s investigative authority is unlimited.

Courts typically give wide berth to the EEOC with its administrative, pre-lawsuit subpoenas, but this ruling illustrates that courts may impose meaningful limits on the EEOC’s subpoena power where the information sought bears no connection to the harm alleged by the individual claimant.

Case Background

On June 10, 2020, Jessica Roe applied for a position as a Public Information Liaison at the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office (“ACSO”). (ECF 20 at 1) The application process included both pre-offer and post-offer phases. During the pre-offer phase, Ms. Roe completed a 430-plus question psychological examination, sometimes referred to as a “Job Suitability Assessment,” administered by Psychological Dimensions, a contractor to the ACSO. (Id.) Ms. Roe also took a polygraph test, provided writing samples, and participated in interviews. (Id. at 2) Following these steps, Ms. Roe was informed she was one of three finalists, had additional interviews, and was offered the job contingent upon further medical, psychological, and background investigation. (Id.)

In the post-offer phase, Ms. Roe completed another extensive psychological examination and met with the Chief Psychologist of Psychological Dimensions. (Id.)During that meeting, she disclosed a mental health diagnosis, a mental health provider, and additional information regarding prescriptions she had been given. (Id.) She was also asked to release information for the diagnosing doctors. (Id.) However, when Psychological Dimensions attempted to verify the information, the diagnosing provider could not confirm Ms. Roe had been a patient or provide records to Psychological Dimensions due to its document retention policy, so the psychologist was unable to “pass” her. (Id.) On September 14, 2020, the ACSO rescinded the job offer because Ms. Roe did not pass the post-offer psychological exam. (Id.)

On June 4, 2021, Ms. Roe filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, alleging retaliation and discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII and disability in violation of the ADA. (Id. at 3) Nearly three years later, on March 20, 2024, Ms. Roe filed an Amended Charge to expand the allegations to include discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, retaliation, age, disability, genetic information, and pregnancy, invoking additional federal statutes. (Id.)

On August 28, 2025, as part of its investigation, the EEOC served two administrative subpoenas on Psychological Dimensions — one pursuant to the ADEA and one pursuant to the ADA and Title VII. (Id.) The subpoenas required Psychological Dimensions to produce the Job Suitability Assessments and related communications for all individuals who answered affirmatively that they had experienced workplace sexual harassment, filed formal complaints against an employer, been involved in lawsuits, or appeared in legal proceedings. (Id. at 4)

On September 10, 2025, Psychological Dimensions objected to the subpoenas, arguing that the information was not relevant, that compliance would be unduly burdensome (requiring at least 1,500 hours), that the request infringed on the privacy and HIPAA rights of non-parties, and that the request sought proprietary trade secrets. (Id.) The parties were unable to resolve the dispute, and the EEOC filed an application for an order to show cause. (Id. at 5)

The Court’s Order

The Court denied the EEOC’s application on procedural and substantive grounds.

As an initial matter, the EEOC argued that Psychological Dimensions’ objections were both procedurally defective and untimely. (Id.) The EEOC noted that the September 10, 2025, objection letter identified only the ADEA subpoena, and there is no administrative procedure for objecting to ADEA subpoenas. (Id.) The EEOC also pointed out that objections to subpoenas issued pursuant to the ADA or Title VII are due within five days after service, making Psychological Dimensions’ objections untimely. (Id. at 5-6) The Court acknowledged the untimeliness — the objections were filed thirteen days after service — but declined to treat this delay as dispositive. (Id.)

Turning to the substance of the subpoenas, the Court identified what it characterized as a “bigger problem.” (Id. at 6) The Court recognized that the four questions in the Job Suitability Assessment potentially punished applicants for exercising their rights under discrimination laws, and the subpoenas sought information to determine whether persons who answered “yes” to those questions were consistently denied employment at the ACSO. (Id. at 7) However, that information had “no application to the charging party, Ms. Roe.” (Id.) The Court’s rationale was that it was undisputed that Ms. Roe answered “no” to all four questions, was found suitable for the position, made the short list of three finalists, and was offered the job. (Id.) The reasons her offer was rescinded were found in the post-offer evaluation, not in the pre-offer Job Suitability Assessment.

Ultimately, the Court determined it was “unwilling to hold that the EEOC’s authority to investigate discrimination in the workplace is unlimited, or that an individual’s claim that she lost a job opportunity due to discrimination opens the door to compelling a third party to produce information that has nothing to do with the discrimination allegedly suffered by the claimant.” (Id. at 7-8) For this reason, the Court denied the EEOC’s application for an order to show cause on its two administrative subpoenas. (Id. at 8)

Implications For Employers

The Court’s decision in Psychological Dimensions is a significant ruling for employers and third-party contractors who face EEOC subpoenas during the investigation of discrimination charges. The decision signals that courts may impose meaningful limits on the scope of the EEOC’s investigative subpoena power where the information sought lacks a nexus to the actual harm alleged by the charging party.

This case demonstrates that, although the EEOC’s subpoena power is broad, it is not boundless. Where the EEOC seeks to expand an investigation beyond the facts that are relevant to the charging party’s claims, courts may be willing to deny enforcement of those subpoenas. Employers who receive subpoenas that they believe extend beyond the scope of the underlying charge should carefully consider whether the information sought bears a meaningful connection to the claimant’s allegations and should be prepared to articulate that disconnect to a court.

June 4, 2026June 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

“Transfer, Not Dismissal” — Arizona Federal Court Confirms That 28 U.S.C. Section 1631 Applies To Personal Jurisdiction

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Jamar D. Davis, and Kenny Tran

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 1, 2026, in Andrew Harrington et al. v. Cracker Barrel Country Store Inc., No. 21-CV-000940, 2026 WL 1532921 (D. Ariz. June 1, 2026), Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, reaffirmed the Ninth Circuit’s determination that 28 U.S.C. section 1631 does apply to personal jurisdiction issues.

The ruling serves as a blueprint for corporate counsel on jurisdictional defenses in nationwide wage & hour lawsuits

Case Background

Plaintiffs, former Cracker Barrel employees, brought an FLSA collective action seeking redress for alleged failure to pay proper wages. Id. at *1. Cracker Barrel filed a Motion to Dismiss due to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Id. A subset of the Plaintiffs who did not continue with arbitration refused to relent, filing a First Amended Complaint asserting that that their signed arbitration agreements were invalid because the Plaintiffs were minors when they signed the agreements. Id. Again, Cracker Barrel filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction as none of the named Plaintiffs were from Arizona or worked in Cracker Barrel Arizona stores. Id. The Court subsequently granted Cracker Barrel’s second Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. Remaining steadfast, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding an Arizona Cracker Barrel employee as a plaintiff. Id. In denying Cracker Barrel’s third Motion to Dismiss, the Court held that the addition of the Arizona Cracker Barrel employee cured the jurisdictional defect. Id.

Following the grant of conditional certification, Cracker Barrel filed a Motion to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal. Id. The Court certified for appeal two questions, including, “[w]hether Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cnty., 582 U.S. 255, 265 (2017), prevents a District Court from sending notice under Section 216(b) of the FLSA to individuals over whom the Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction.” Id. The Ninth Circuit answered in the affirmative and held that “Bristol-Myers applies in collective actions under the FLSA and to that end, specific personal jurisdiction must be analyzed for every individual plaintiff proceeding under the collective action.” Id. In real word application, this meant that the Plaintiffs attempt to cure their Second Amended Complaint by adding an Arizona Cracker Barrel employee was ineffective as specific personal jurisdiction must be satisfied for all Plaintiffs in the collective action. Id. In other words, the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the non-Arizona Plaintiffs. Id. at *3.

In response, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer Non-Arizona Plaintiffs to the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts. Id. at *1.

The Court’s Decision

Plaintiffs cited three statues, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1404, 1406, and 1631, to advance their motion. Id. at *2. The Court found that Section 1404 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ Motion. Id. The Court also clarified that Section 1406 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ Motion as the statute is appropriate when making an attempt to transfer a case if the initial court is not in the proper venue. Id. The Court noted that that venue “is not a jurisdiction component” and that Section 1406 is only proper if the defendant moved to dismiss (or transfer) for improper venue. Id.

The Court observed that Section 1631 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ Motion as it “is used specifically to cure deficiencies in jurisdiction.” Id. The statute, however, hinges on a “want of jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. All circuits agree that “want of jurisdiction” applies to subject matter jurisdiction; however, there is a circuit split on whether the term applies to personal jurisdiction. Harrington, 2026 2026 WL 1532921, at *2. The Ninth Circuit typically finds that Section 1631 applies to personal jurisdiction. Id.

In the end, the Court made the decision to sever the non-Arizona plaintiffs and transfer their claims to the District Court of Massachusetts because there was a “want of jurisdiction” for the non-Arizona plaintiffs and because the legislative history, plain text, and the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Section 1631 (that the statute applies to personal jurisdiction) allowed for the transfer. Id. at 3.

Implications For Employers

Employers should remain diligent to confirm that personal jurisdiction applies for each plaintiff proceeding under a collective action. This is because attempts by the plaintiff’s bar to retain jurisdiction with the addition of a single plaintiff who is a resident of the location for the presiding court are futile. Further, this decision reaffirms the application of the Ninth Circuit’s reading of Section 1631 — namely, that “want of jurisdiction” applies to personal jurisdiction issues. Companies defending nationwide wage and hour actions should closely evaluate whether transfer motions can be used strategically when personal jurisdiction defects exist, especially in cases involving large groups of opt-in plaintiffs from multiple states.

June 4, 2026June 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Colorado Federal Court Allows Employer To Seek Attorneys’ Fees Against EEOC After Deeming Long COVID Claims Frivolous

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Bernadette Coyle

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 1, 2026, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A&A Appliance, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-2456 (D. Colo. June 1, 2026), Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendant A&A Appliances, Inc.’s (“A&A”) motion to deem the EEOC’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation, entitling the employer to seek a full award of attorneys’ fees. This decision is an important read for corporate counsel facing employment discrimination cases, particularly EEOC-initiated litigation. The ruling demonstrates that the federal agency can face fee-shifting consequences when it pursues claims that lack evidentiary support from their inception.

Case Background

Defendant A&A Appliance, Inc. (“A&A”) employed Karima Javanzad from February 2019 to June 2020. During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Javanzad sought a 12-week FMLA leave for varied reasons, including her own possible COVID-19 infection, her son’s illness, and a gastrointestinal condition. A&A approved the medical leave retroactively, covering mid-March through early June 2020. Over the following weeks, A&A and Ms. Javanzad exchanged emails, calls, and texts about when her leave would expire and whether an extension was possible. When Ms. Javanzad did not return to work after her leave ran out, A&A terminated her employment on June 10, 2020, explaining that it had offered to extend her leave only if the original FMLA-triggering condition warranted it, and that her gastrointestinal disorder (unrelated to COVID-19) did not qualify.

Ms. Javanzad subsequently filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in December 2020, asserting that A&A had discriminated against her based on her disability and retaliated against her for seeking a reasonable accommodation. Following its investigation, the EEOC concluded there was reasonable cause to believe A&A violated the ADA and attempted to resolve the matter through conciliation. After those efforts failed, the EEOC filed suit in September 2023 claiming: (1) failure to accommodate, (2) disparate treatment, and (3) retaliation under the ADA.

In September 2025, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of A&A on every claim, concluding that the EEOC had not demonstrated that A&A was ever on notice of a qualifying disability that required accommodation under the ADA. A&A then moved for an order deeming the EEOC’s claims frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation so that it could recover its full attorney’s fees.

The Court’s Decision

Chief Judge Domenico granted A&A’s motion. The Court applied the standard from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), which permits an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant in an ADA case where the court finds that the plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.” Id. at 422.

The Court applied three factors from the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Walker v. NationsBank of Florida, N.A., 53 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1995), which the Tenth Circuit has affirmed: (1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a full-blown trial on the merits. All three factors weighed in A&A’s favor — the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie case, A&A offered to settle, and the case was dismissed on summary judgment before trial.

The Court rejected the EEOC’s argument that the Christiansburg Garment standard is met only when a party “utterly fails to produce any evidence in support of material issues necessary to withstand summary judgment.” The Court explained that while the EEOC presented some evidence that Ms. Javanzad had a disability and requested leave, it failed to present evidence for the critical element of A&A’s knowledge of the claimed disability. As the Court emphasized, “[a] ‘health condition’ does not equate to a qualifying disability under the ADA” and “knowledge of a health condition is not necessarily knowledge of a disability.”

Importantly, the Court found that the EEOC had multiple years before initiating the action in September 2023 to investigate the facts and apply established case law. The EEOC’s own initial complaint showed that it knew Ms. Javanzad was diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis and gastritis after her June 9 endoscopy, and thus presumably after her June 10 termination, and that she was diagnosed with COVID-19 after termination. These facts undermined the EEOC’s assertion that its evidence changed throughout discovery. Moreover, fact discovery closed in July 2024, seven months before the dispositive motion deadline, and A&A raised issues of factual and legal deficiencies throughout litigation prior to summary judgment.

Finally, the Court noted that the EEOC is not a “regular plaintiff” and that courts may consider distinctions between the Commission and private plaintiffs. Quoting the Fifth Circuit, the Court observed that the EEOC “owes duties to employers as well: a duty reasonably to investigate charges, a duty to conciliate in good faith, and a duty to cease enforcement attempts after learning that an action lacks merit.” EEOC v. Agro Distribution, LLC, 555 F.3d 462, 473 (5th Cir. 2009). The Court concluded: “Ms. Javanzad might have been excused from pressing these issues. The EEOC is not.” For these reasons, the Court entitled A&A to reasonable attorney’s fees.

Implications For Employers

For employers facing EEOC-initiated litigation, this decision underscores the importance of raising factual and legal deficiencies early, consistently and persistently throughout discovery, as the Court credited A&A’s efforts to put the EEOC on notice of the weaknesses in its case. This decision also reinforces that while there is a high threshold for establishing entitlement to attorney’s fees, prevailing defendants are not without recourse when the EEOC presses claims lacking foundational evidentiary support.

June 2, 2026June 2, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

California Federal Court Clarifies Limits On AI Bias Testing And Applicant Data Disclosure In Mobley v. Workday

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Adam D. Brown, and Elizabeth G. Underwood

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Mobley, et al. v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-00770, 2026 WL 1510537 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2026) (ECF No. 340), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order resolving three discovery disputes in this closely watched employment discrimination class action involving novel artificial intelligence (AI) issues. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of Workday’s bias-testing data, finding that the attorney-client privilege protects the data because Workday’s attorneys curated it and used the results in providing legal advice. The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Workday to produce its customers’ applicant data because Plaintiffs failed to show that Workday had control of that data within the meaning of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court ordered production of Workday’s EEO-1 and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) documents, finding those documents to be relevant to Workday’s knowledge of potential demographic disparities when utilizing its AI tools.

The ruling is significant for corporate counsel. For employers navigating the intersection of privilege, discovery obligations, and AI hiring tools, this ruling provides important guidance on protecting bias-testing data while recognizing the broad scope of discoverable information in AI employment discrimination cases.

This development follows Workday’s unsuccessful Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which we blogged about here, Workday’s first successful Motion to Dismiss, which we blogged on here, and the EEOC’s amicus brief filing, which we blogged about here.

Case Background

Plaintiffs are suing Workday for utilizing an AI screening system that allegedly is more likely to deny employment applications from individuals who are African American, suffer from disabilities, or are over forty years old. Id. at *1. Workday Recruiting is a software product that helps customers manage hiring, and customers who purchase Workday Recruiting have access to an algorithmic feature called Candidate Skills Match, which determines the extent to which an applicant’s skills match the role to which they applied. Id. In 2024, Workday acquired HiredScore, which allowed Workday to offer additional features to customers, including Spotlight, a candidate review tool, and Fetch, a sourcing tool that connects organizations with potential talent by suggesting individuals for open jobs. Id.

As to the present discovery disputes, first, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Workday to produce its bias-testing data and its customers’ applicant data. Id. at *3. The parties disagreed as to whether the bias-testing data was protected by attorney-client privilege and whether Workday had control of its customers’ applicant data. Id. Second, Plaintiffs sought to compel production of Workday’s EEO-1 and OFCCP documents, with the parties disputing relevance, burden, and waiver. Id. at *6. Third, Plaintiffs moved to compel Workday to provide deanonymized data of applicants’ names and other application information. Id. at *7.

The Court’s Decision

Attorney-Client Privilege Applied To Bias-Testing Data

First, the Court agreed with Workday that its bias-testing data was protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Id. at *4. Specifically, the Court reasoned that the bias-testing data was privileged because Workday had shown more than mere direction from its attorneys and “ha[d] represented that its attorneys curated the data it used in the bias testing, the overall purpose of the testing was to provide legal advice and not to be used in a business capacity, and it ha[d] not submitted the data to a regulatory body.” Id.

Moreover, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that Workday had waived privilege by using the bias-testing data offensively through reliance on an “AI Fact Sheet” that stated Workday performs bias testing. Id. at *5. Instead, the Court held that “Workday’s invoking the mere existence of its bias testing outside of litigation [was] not enough to waive privilege.” Id.

No Control Over Customer Application Data

Second, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Workday to produce its customers’ applicant data. Id. at *6. The Court found that Plaintiffs had not met their burden of demonstrating that the provision of the Master Subscription Agreement allowing Workday to produce a customer’s data under a court order constituted “control” under Rule 34 because Workday did not have a legal right to obtain its customers’ data on demand. Id. at *6. However, the Court observed that some third parties that Plaintiffs had subpoenaed had taken the position that Plaintiffs should seek the data from Workday instead. Id. Thus, the Court encouraged the parties to work together to resolve the issue. Id.

Production Of EEO-1 and OFCCP Documents

Third, the Court ordered production of Workday’s EEO-1 and OFCCP documents, finding that Plaintiffs had met their initial burden on relevance. Id. In particular, the Court reasoned that Workday utilizes the same AI tools as its customers, and under either the agent or direct-employer theory, “Workday’s EEO-1 and OFCCP documents are relevant to its knowledge of potential demographic disparities when utilizing AI tools.” Id. at *6.

Deanonymized Applicant Data

Finally, the Court disposed of Plaintiffs’ request for deanonymized applicant data as moot because Plaintiffs had admitted in subpoenas seeking the same information from third parties that they did not need applicant names. Id. at *7.

Implications For Employers

This decision reinforces the concept that bias-testing data can be shielded from production under attorney-client privilege when an employer’s attorneys curate the underlying data and conduct bias-testing for the purpose of providing legal advice, as opposed to a business or regulatory compliance purpose. Of note, and as supported by this Court’s decision, companies that utilize AI in their hiring processes should structure their bias-testing under the direction of legal counsel to preserve attorney-client privilege.

Moreover, the Court’s ruling on EEO-1 and OFCCP documents suggests that employers and AI vendors should be aware that they may face broad discovery obligations regarding their own use of the same AI tools they market to customers, as in this case, the Court found Workday’s EEO-1 and OFCCP documents relevant because Workday uses the same AI tools as its customers.