Who's Involved?

Unlike most cases tracked on this site, the AI vendor here - HireVue - isn't actually a defendant. This case is entirely about what CVS itself was required to tell applicants, not about whether HireVue's technology was biased.

Brendan Baker

Brendan Baker is a Massachusetts resident - reporting has identified him as living in Milton, Massachusetts - who applied for a supply chain position at CVS in January 2021. He filed his case "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," meaning he sought to represent a broader class of CVS applicants, not just resolve his own claim - though the case ultimately settled on an individual basis. (source: Boston Globe/Boston.com)

CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Both CVS entities are named as defendants - CVS Health Corporation is the parent company, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. the operating subsidiary that actually employs retail and supply-chain staff. CVS is the only defendant in this case; it's CVS's own hiring process, and CVS's own legal obligation to provide notice, that's at issue. (source: FindLaw case summary)

HireVue and Affectiva - used, but not sued

CVS used HireVue's video-interview platform to interview Baker, which in turn sent his recorded responses to a second company, Affectiva, to analyze his facial expressions. Neither HireVue nor Affectiva is named as a defendant in this case - the legal theory here is entirely about CVS's own notice obligation as the employer, not about whether HireVue's or Affectiva's technology actually worked or was accurate. That's a real contrast with ACLU v. Intuit & HireVue, tracked elsewhere on this site, where the AI vendor itself is named as a co-respondent. (source: Bloomberg Law)

The court

The case was originally filed in Massachusetts state court (Suffolk Superior Court) and removed to federal court by CVS, where it was assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris in the District of Massachusetts, case number 1:23-cv-11483. (source: FindLaw case summary)

For what actually happened and when, see the timeline.

Sources (all publicly accessible)

  1. FindLaw: Baker v. CVS Health Corporation — summary of the court's ruling denying CVS's motions to dismiss.
  2. Boston Globe / Boston.com — background on Baker and the original filing.
  3. Bloomberg Law — reporting on the settlement.