Mobley v. Workday: a court allows the claim that a screening vendor acts as the employers' agent, 2024 to 2026
The typed evidence object. This is the working store; the case page is the reader's form.
| Layer / facet | Value | Type | Sources | Conf. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mandate: principal | Employers using Workday's tools; the question before the court is whether Workday is their agent | fact | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | high |
| Mandate: objective | Screen and rank applicants (as alleged) | assertion | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | high |
| Actor | Workday's automated screening tools, as alleged by the plaintiff | assertion | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | high |
| Inputs | Applications; the plaintiff, over 40, alleges more than a hundred rejections through Workday-powered systems | assertion | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | high |
| Decision | Alleged disparate impact by age, race, and disability in the screening; since January 2026 the amended complaint also alleges disparate impact by gender | assertion | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24; Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 267, Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss and to Strike (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 03/06/26 (copy hosted by Courthouse News) | medium |
| Envelope | No applicable restriction on what the screening could weigh is alleged | interpretation | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | medium |
| Action | Rejections issued through the systems | assertion | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | medium |
| Outcome | State: alleged harm. Preliminary collective certification in May 2025 of the age-discrimination claim, for applicants aged 40 and over who applied through Workday's platform since 24 September 2020 and were denied recommendations; in July 2025 the court held that, at this preliminary stage, the collective also includes applicants scored, sorted, ranked or screened with Workday's HiredScore features; the merits are untested. | fact | Mobley v. Workday, N.D. Cal., Dkt. 128, Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, 16 May 2025; Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 158, Order re HiredScore Dispute (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/29/25 | high |
| Evidence: event | Court orders; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief of 9 April 2024 argued Workday could be covered as an employment agency, an indirect employer, or an agent of employers, and took no position on the accuracy of the allegations; the court accepted the agent theory, rejected the employment-agency theory and did not reach the indirect-employer theory | fact | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24; Mobley v. Workday, N.D. Cal., Dkt. 128, Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, 16 May 2025; EEOC amicus brief in Mobley v. Workday, N.D. Cal., Dkt. 60-1, 9 April 2024 | high |
| Recovery: accountability | In July 2024 the court held the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that Workday acted as the employers' agent, performing a function employers traditionally perform; it dismissed the employment-agency theory and the intentional-discrimination claims, leaving the agent theory and the disparate-impact claims; it did not reach the indirect-employer theory, and dismissed the state-law aiding-and-abetting claim with leave to amend | fact | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | high |
Controls
| Status | Control | Canonical |
|---|
Unmapped
- C-D1 (bias testing of the screening): alleged in a pending lawsuit, not established; not counted as a missing control until a court rules. A court order of 13 July 2026 records that Workday produced three bias evaluation reports in discovery, describing its internal analysis of sampled applicant data; the order does not say what they found
Inference
inference Read with the Air Canada case (REG-0010), this one suggests a working rule: delegating to a system does not move responsibility off the company that delegated, and may extend it to the vendor that performs the function. The court stated the first part as existing law, since no employer is a party, and at the pleading stage allowed the claim that the vendor is the employers' agent, whether software or a person does the screening. There is no finding that the tools discriminate; the vendor contests the claims, which are still pending.
Sources
| ID | Record | Type | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| NDCAL | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 80, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/12/24 | court primary record | storage.courtlistener.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20 |
| NDCAL-MAY25 | Mobley v. Workday, N.D. Cal., Dkt. 128, Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, 16 May 2025 | court primary record | govinfo.gov ↗ checked 2026-10-20 |
| EEOC | EEOC amicus brief in Mobley v. Workday, N.D. Cal., Dkt. 60-1, 9 April 2024 | regulator primary record | eeoc.gov ↗ checked 2026-10-20 |
| NDCAL-JUL25 | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 158, Order re HiredScore Dispute (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 07/29/25 | court primary record | storage.courtlistener.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20 |
| NDCAL-MAR26 | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 267, Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss and to Strike (Judge Rita F. Lin), filed 03/06/26 (copy hosted by Courthouse News) | court primary record | courthousenews.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20 |
| NDCAL-JUL26 | Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Order Granting Motion to Change Time (Judge Rita F. Lin), 13 July 2026 (FindLaw copy) | court primary record | caselaw.findlaw.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20 |
| LAWYERMONTHLY | Lawyer Monthly, 'Workday Faces Class Bid Over AI Hiring Bias Claims' (Matt Johnson), 21 September 2026 | press pointer secondary: press report | lawyer-monthly.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20 |