Mobley v. Workday, Inc. — automated applicant screening

What this case tracks

This California federal action concerns alleged discrimination in automated applicant screening. Preliminary collective certification permits a collective process; it is not a final finding of discrimination.

Current record

The October 2026 discovery order addresses depositions related to class certification. No final liability judgment is established by the sources linked here. The October 7 order remains the latest substantive court order verified here; the additional docket descriptions below were checked October 30, 2026.

What did the October 7 order decide?

The court permitted Workday to question fifteen applicants who supplied declarations supporting class certification. Each deposition is limited to two hours, conducted remotely and confined to the declaration. The order sets an October 15–30 window; it does not establish that the depositions have occurred.

Does this order certify the proposed classes?

No. It addresses discovery for the certification dispute. The existing conditional age-discrimination collective and the requested Rule 23 classes are different procedural questions. Neither this discovery order nor conditional collective certification establishes that discrimination occurred.

Where can readers follow the case?

Read the dated timeline and linked court documents above. Compare the separate Harper v. Sirius XM case record, or return to the AI hiring lawsuit tracker. A rejected application alone does not establish what software was used or why a decision was made. For an individual concern, see our discrimination practice.

Applicant data held by Workday customers

On July 28, 2026, Judge Rita F. Lin denied the plaintiffs’ challenge to an earlier discovery order concerning applicant data in customers’ password-protected environments. The court found no clear error in the conclusion that plaintiffs had not established Workday’s possession of that data. It separately distinguished aggregated, anonymized statistics used by Workday for its own purposes. The order did not decide whether discrimination occurred.

In plain English, access to hiring evidence can depend on who holds and controls it. This ruling does not establish that all applicant data or all statistics are unavailable in discovery.

Read the July 28 order, ECF 407.

Scope of the July 28 update

This addition verifies ECF 407, pages 1–2. The public docket also lists an October 13 notice (ECF 436), but its contents were not obtained. No substantive development is inferred from that label. Public docket copies may omit filings. See the AI hiring lawsuit tracker and information on workplace discrimination.

October 28 protective-order filing

On October 28, 2026, Workday filed a discovery letter brief for a protective order (ECF 442), according to the public RECAP docket. The underlying brief was not freely available in the record checked October 30. The requested protection, supporting grounds and any ruling on the request have not been verified. Filing a request does not establish that relief was granted.

October docket entries

October 13, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata concerning ECF 419-16 and 419-25 (ECF 436). The docket lists declarations and correction redlines associated with the notice. The notice and attachments were not available for full-text review, so the substance of the corrections is not described here.

October 28, 2026: Workday filed a discovery letter brief for a protective order (ECF 442). The docket description is verified; the underlying brief and outcome are not.

Plain-language note

A protective-order request asks the court to limit or protect discovery. The filing label alone does not show what restriction Workday requested or whether the court agreed. These entries do not decide discrimination liability or Rule 23 class certification.

Sources and coverage

October 13 notice of errata — public docket
October 28 protective-order brief — public docket

Public mirrors may be incomplete. October 29 ECF 443 notice and ECF 444 sealing-motion labels also appear, but contents were unavailable and are not summarized. October 7 ECF 435 remains the latest verified substantive court order described here. The scheduled deposition window does not establish that any deposition occurred.