A US federal judge ordered Workday Inc. to reveal which employers used its AI tools to screen job applicants. This case could become one of the largest employment discrimination lawsuits in US history. Judge Rita F. Lin ruled on July 29 that the collective action alleging age discrimination can move forward against Workday’s AI hiring software. This could affect hundreds of millions of job seekers. “A US federal judge has ordered Workday Inc. (Nasdaq: WDAY) to provide a list of employers that used artificial intelligence to screen job applicants, in what could become one of the largest employment discrimination lawsuits in US history. Judge Rita F. Lin ruled July 29 that the collective action lawsuit alleging age discrimination can proceed against the software company’s AI-powered hiring tools, potentially affecting hundreds of millions of job seekers.” https://thedeepdive.ca/federal-court-orders-workday-to-reveal-employers-in-ai-hiring-discrimination-case/
The court also ruled Workday must disclose which customers used the HiredScore AI features in hiring, even though Workday bought the technology after the lawsuit started. “Workday Inc. must provide a list of customers who enabled HiredScore artificial intelligence features in their hiring process, even though the company acquired the technology after the original complaint was filed, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Tuesday.” https://www.hrdive.com/news/workday-must-supply-list-of-employers-who-enabled-hiredscore-ai/756506/
Workday admitted its software rejected 1.1 billion job applications during the relevant period. The class could include hundreds of millions of affected workers. “In filings, Workday represented that ‘1.1 billion applications were rejected’ using its software tools during the relevant period, and so the collective could potentially include ‘hundreds of millions’ of members.” https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/2025/06/ai-bias-lawsuit-against-workday-reaches-next-stage-as-court-grants-conditional-certification-of-adea-claim/
The plaintiff claims the AI filtered out his application before any human saw it. Workday says it is just a software provider and not responsible. The judge disagreed, saying Workday’s tools could have directly influenced hiring decisions. “The plaintiff in the case alleges that the AI unfairly filtered out his application before a human ever saw it. Workday argued that it shouldn’t be held responsible because it’s just a software provider, not an employer or employment agency. But the judge disagreed, finding that Workday’s tools could have directly influenced hiring decisions.” https://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/texasemploymentlawblog/2025/8/3/court-orders-workday-to-reveal-employers-that-used-ai-tool-allegedly-biased-against-older-job-seekers
Workday claims it’s just software, but the judge says it makes hiring decisions. The AI did not just sort resumes. It denied interviews. The plaintiff was rejected at 1:50 a.m. without any human review. This is not screening. It is exclusion.
The system rejected 1.1 billion applications. The court says the class could include hundreds of millions. Workday must name every employer who used this flagged technology. The deadline is August 20.
The lawsuit has survived multiple attempts to dismiss it. The judge expanded the case. She called Workday an agent. She said the AI made real hiring decisions.
Workday’s defense is that it is just a tool. But that tool sorted, ranked, and screened candidates. The plaintiff never got a fair shot.
Federal guidance on AI bias was scrapped under Trump. The EEOC supports the plaintiff anyway. Now the courts are doing what regulators refused to do.