The Algorithm Said No.
You didn't get the job — a model screened the application out before a human ever saw the name. So who is the defendant: the company that didn't hire, or the software that didn't let anyone try?
In Mobley v. Workday, the answer arrived: both. A court let job-seekers sue the software vendor — not just the employer — as the employer’s “agent.” In March 2026, a judge refused to throw it out, ruling that age-discrimination law protects the people applying, not only the people already hired.
It is now a nationwide age-discrimination collective; roughly 14,000 applicants have opted in. There is no trial date. There is something more useful to everyone watching: a door, open.
This is the wave that files straight into HR, into lending, into every “AI-powered” hiring funnel quietly running across financial services right now. The old shield — the vendor’s algorithm did it — just stopped working. The new homework, for everyone deploying these tools: if a model is making the call, somebody has to be able to audit the call.
Footnotes
- Mobley v. Workday (N.D. Cal.): the motion to dismiss was denied 6 March 2026 (J. Rita Lin), permitting a conditional ADEA collective to proceed — a collective, not a Rule 23 class. About 14,000 people opted in by the 7 March deadline; the case is in discovery with no trial date. Fisher Phillips; HR Dive. Louis v. SafeRent settled for $2,275,000 plus a five-year prohibition on algorithmic scoring of housing-voucher applicants. Cohen Milstein.