In the Media
Coverage of this case ran in general local news and legal/business wire services - a genuine local-interest angle (a named Massachusetts resident) combined with the legal significance of a novel theory being tested in federal court.
A note on what this page is and isn't: these are short excerpts for citation purposes, not full reproductions of the articles - read the linked piece for the complete story and its full context. One entry below quotes HireVue's own public statement responding to the underlying allegations, included for balance, even though HireVue isn't a defendant in this case.
- Bloomberg Law July 18, 2024
CVS Applicant Agrees to Settle AI-Aided Lie Detector Test Suit
“Massachusetts prohibits employers from subjecting workers or applicants to a lie detector test as a condition of employment.”
This is U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris's own description of the underlying law, quoted in the article - not the reporter's own characterization.
Ufonobong Umanah · Read the full article → - Boston Globe / Boston.com May 22, 2023
A Milton resident's lawsuit against CVS raises questions about the use of AI lie detectors in hiring
“Our assessments are not, and have never been, designed to assess the truthfulness of a candidate's response.”
This is a statement from Lindsey Zuloaga, HireVue's Chief Data Scientist, responding to the case - not the reporter's own assessment. HireVue is not a defendant in this case; included because its technology is central to the allegations.
What the coverage pattern shows: this case broke into local general-audience news (the Boston Globe) in a way most cases on this site don't manage until they reach a ruling or settlement - likely because a named local resident taking on a major national employer is an easier story to tell than an abstract algorithmic-bias claim. The legal significance came later, once the motion-to-dismiss ruling gave lawyers a real precedent to write about.
For what the court actually ruled, see the case timeline.