Timeline of Developments
Last development: July 2, 2026
- July 2, 2026
Judge won't let Workday fast-track an appeal on the core legal question
Workday asks the judge for permission to immediately appeal the foundational ruling that job applicants (not just current employees) can bring age-discrimination claims under federal law - a ruling that, if overturned, could unravel the entire nationwide age-discrimination case. The judge refuses, saying the case is too far along, too much time and money have already gone into building the group of roughly 14,500 people who joined it, and Workday can still raise the same argument on appeal later if it loses at trial.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - July 1, 2026
Court finalizes the complaint; a fourth version is coming
The judge formally decides which specific allegations survive from the plaintiffs' latest complaint and which are struck out, largely preserving the allegations that support the newer plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs must now file a clean, updated ('Fourth Amended') version of the complaint, and Workday's formal response is due by July 15, 2026.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - June 24, 2026
Judge partly reopens a question about Workday's access to customer data
Reviewing an appeal of the May 29 evidence ruling, the judge leaves the bias-testing privilege decision in place, but sends one narrow piece back for a second look: whether Workday effectively has enough access to its customers' applicant data to be forced to hand it over, even if it doesn't formally 'control' that data.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - June 22, 2026
Judge lets most of the case continue, but drops one claim
The judge rejects Workday's latest attempt to get the California state-law claims thrown out, even though many of the people covered don't live in California - because Workday's AI tools are the common thread connecting them. The disability discrimination claim is also allowed to continue. But a separate claim - that the AI tools produce unequal outcomes by race - is dismissed.
Source: HR Dive - May 29, 2026
Judge rules Workday doesn't have to hand over its internal bias tests - but must hand over other compliance records
A judge decides Workday does not have to give the plaintiffs its own internal test results on whether its AI hiring tools are biased, because that material was prepared together with Workday's lawyers as part of getting legal advice, which the law generally protects from disclosure. But in the same ruling, the judge orders Workday to hand over separate government compliance reports (called EEO-1 and OFCCP filings) that show workforce demographics, since those could reveal whether Workday knew about demographic disparities caused by its AI tools.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - May 22, 2026
Workday tells its own investors it believes the claims 'lack merit'
In its official quarterly financial report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Workday tells investors: "We are currently defending against a lawsuit alleging that certain of our AI-related products and services enable discrimination, and although we believe that such claims lack merit, and the majority of the claims have been dismissed, legal proceedings can be lengthy, expensive, and disruptive to our operations and customers." This is Workday's own official position on the case - it has not issued a public press release about the lawsuit; this SEC filing is the closest thing to an official company statement.
Source: Workday 10-Q filing (SEC EDGAR) - April 14, 2026
Over 500 late applicants are still allowed to join
More than 500 people submitted their paperwork to join the case after the official March 7 deadline had passed. Rather than turning them all away, the judge allows anyone who submitted by April 14, 2026 to join anyway.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - March 27, 2026
Plaintiffs refile the claims that were dismissed
The plaintiffs file an updated ('Third Amended') complaint, adding more detail to try to fix the problems the judge found with the California state-law claim and the disability claim.
Source: Court filing (GovInfo) - March 7, 2026
About 14,000 people join the case
The deadline passes for people to join the nationwide age-discrimination case. Around 14,000 people sign up, making this one of the largest lawsuits of its kind over AI hiring software.
Source: AI Governance for HR - March 6, 2026
Age-discrimination claim survives; other claims narrowed for now; AARP weighs in
One day before the deadline for people to join the case, the judge rejects Workday's argument that older job applicants aren't covered by the federal age-discrimination law, so that part of the case continues. At the same time, the judge dismisses the California state-law claim and the disability claim - but lets the plaintiffs try again with more detail. In the same ruling, the judge also allows AARP and AARP Foundation - a major nonprofit that advocates for Americans over 50 - to formally weigh in on the case as a friend of the court, over Workday's objection.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - February 17, 2026
Court approves sending notice to people who may qualify to join
The court approves a plan to notify people who might qualify to join the age-discrimination case, giving them a chance to sign up before a deadline.
- January 14, 2026
Judge presses the plaintiffs' own lawyers over delays
The judge orders the plaintiffs' lawyers to explain why they've made so little progress gathering evidence, given how big and significant the case is, and to say how they'll avoid further delay - going so far as to question whether they're capable of adequately representing the group of applicants they speak for.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - January 6, 2026
Three more people join as named plaintiffs; new claims about gender added
The court allows the case to add three new named plaintiffs - Jill E. Hughes, Sheilah Johnson-Rocha, and Faithlinh Rowe - alongside Derek Mobley, plus new claims that Workday's screening tools also discriminate based on gender, under both federal law and California's civil rights law.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - August 28, 2025
Court lays out exactly how people join the case - and keeps Workday's customer list private
The judge approves a detailed, multi-step process for joining the case: people first submit a short form online listing which employers they applied to through Workday; an independent third-party administrator (not Workday, and not the people suing) then privately checks that list against the employers Workday says used its AI screening features; only applicants who match get invited to formally join. Workday must hand its list of qualifying employers to that neutral administrator, not to the public or even directly to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Notice to potential group members will go out over social media, not through Workday's own platform.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - July 29, 2025
Judge rules a newly acquired AI tool still counts in the case
Workday had argued that people screened by an AI tool it calls HiredScore (specifically features named Spotlight and Fetch) shouldn't be part of the case, because Workday acquired HiredScore only after the lawsuit was filed. The judge disagrees: anyone screened by those HiredScore features since September 24, 2020 is still covered, regardless of when Workday added the tool to its platform. The judge also tells the two sides to work out a plan for Workday to hand over a list of which customers used these features.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - May 16, 2025
Case grows into a nationwide group case for age discrimination
A judge allows the age-discrimination part of the case to grow from one person's lawsuit into a nationwide case that other people can join. Specifically, any job applicant aged 40 or older who was rejected through Workday's screening software since September 24, 2020 can now sign up to join Mobley's claim.
Source: Court order (GovInfo) - July 12, 2024
Judge rules Workday itself can be sued, not just the employers who use it
A judge rules that Workday - the software company - can potentially be held directly responsible for discrimination, not only the employers who use its product. The judge finds that Workday's software doesn't just follow employers' instructions; it actually helps decide who moves forward and who gets rejected, so Workday can be treated like the employer's stand-in under discrimination law. This keeps the lawsuit alive instead of getting it thrown out.
Source: Seyfarth Shaw LLP - April 9, 2024
The federal government's own civil rights agency weighs in
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - the federal agency that enforces workplace discrimination law - files a brief offering its legal views to the court, even though it isn't a party to the lawsuit. The EEOC doesn't typically weigh in on ordinary employment disputes, so its involvement signals the agency sees this case as bigger than the two companies involved.
- February 21, 2023
Derek Mobley sues Workday
Derek Mobley sues Workday, Inc. in federal court, saying the company's AI-powered job-screening software discriminated against him and other applicants because of their race, age, and disability. Mobley says that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 jobs at companies that use Workday's software and was rejected every single time.
Source: CourtListener Docket