[Image of Artificial Intelligence. Credit to Pixabay]

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held in Mobley v. Workday, issued on July 12, 2024, that a provider of AI-based hiring software may be liable under federal anti-discrimination laws if its screening algorithms discriminate against protected groups.

This landmark case has opened up the possibility of holding AI bias against workers with disabilities accountable.

Derek Mobley, who suffers from anxiety and depression, alleged that Workday’s algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him on the basis of age, race, and disability.

According to him, he had applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday’s screening tool, including jobs he was clearly qualified for, and had been rejected from every single position.

Mobley argues that Workday’s algorithmic screening AI, personality tests, and assessments discriminate against job applicants who are disabled, African American, and over the age of forty.

Judge Rita Lind has allowed the disparate impact claim to proceed, shutting down Workday’s motion to dismiss the complaint. 

She argued that by incorporating AI and machine learning into their systems, Workday is no longer just applying a criteria set forth by employers, but actively participating in the decision making process.

This case is significant as it is the first time that the courts recognized that an AI vendor, rather than just the employers, could be held liable if found to be instituting discriminatory hiring practices.

The Mobley v. Workday case has continued to grow and on April 14, 2026 the Court allowed additional job applicants to join the case, making it a nation-wide collective action.

An estimated 70 percent of companies and 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies utillize AI in some form within their hiring processes. 

Workday alone serves more than 11,500 users globally, including over 60 percent of the Fortune 500.

The magnitude of potential bias against potential employees with disabilities cannot be overstated, nor can the significance of a case that acknowledges such impacts.

AI discrimination against workers with disabilities is slowly becoming a well-documented phenomenon.

According to Bloomberg Law, AI tools used for interviews that measure participants’ biometric data have been observed to be biased against autistic and blind individuals.

Furthermore, a 2024 University of Washington study found that AI screeners consistently ranked resumes that include disability related awards or memberships lower than those without.

The Hill argues that such rampant discrimination arises from the years of biased training data that the AI digests, producing the same biased outcomes that has plagued employees with disabilities for years.

With AI use in the hiring process projected to only increase over time, employers must learn to balance efficiency with inclusivity.

Harris Beach Murtha, attorneys at law, offers a clear set of guidelines to ensure such a thing. 

They highlight the importance of building a repeatable and testable process that incorporates AI with accommodations built into the workflow in order to minimize potential biases.

IBM seems to agree, emphasizing the consistent documentation of AI processes and auditing of systems to manage discrimination, along with clear communication channels with human workers for the human touch.

As the artificial intelligence continues to be incorporated far too hastily into the hiring process, which also reinforces discriminatory practices as of now, the future is still hopeful.

With bellwether cases such as Mobley v. Workday offering insight into how employers and AI vendors might be held accountable, it is likely that companies will be motivated to review their hiring processes, reducing discrimination against people with disabilities.