California AI Hiring Lawsuit Tracker

2019-11-18: The EEOC announced a $6 million consent-decree settlement over alleged racial disparity in criminal background screening. Relief included changes to screening and reconsideration procedures. A settlement should be distinguished from a contested liability judgment; this case does not establish AI use.

2006-11-17: The appeals court upheld findings that a pre-employment strength test discriminated against women and an approximately $3.3 million award to rejected applicants, according to the EEOC’s announcement. This is a physical-testing case, not AI.

2005-06-14: The court treated the MMPI assessment used for management advancement as an ADA medical examination and reversed on that issue. Other claims were affirmed. This historical psychological-assessment case does not establish that every personality test or AI assessment is medical.

1988-06-29: The court held that disparate-impact analysis may apply to subjective or discretionary selection systems. It vacated and remanded rather than making a final finding against the bank. This is a historical promotion case, not an automated screening case.

1977-06-27: The court held that the challenged height and weight requirements violated Title VII, while separately addressing a narrow sex-based occupational-qualification issue for particular prison positions. This physical-selection case predates AI.

1982-06-21: A favorable overall promotion result did not shield an employer from a challenge to a discriminatory pass-fail test that blocked individual candidates. This historical selection-process ruling predates AI and concerns promotions.

2009-06-29: The court held that discarding firefighters’ promotion-test results based on race violated Title VII absent the required strong basis in evidence of disparate-impact liability. This is a historical promotion-testing case, not an AI hiring case.

1975-06-25: The court addressed backpay and validation of employment tests, finding the employer’s validation study inadequate and remanding. This historical test-validation decision predates AI; its application to any modern system requires separate legal analysis.

1971-03-08: The court rejected diploma and general aptitude-test barriers that disproportionately excluded Black workers and lacked demonstrated job-relatedness. This foundational selection-testing decision predates AI and should not be presented as an AI lawsuit.

2018-09-10: Applicants challenged denial of jobs following criminal background checks. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal for lack of standing. This entry records the historical appellate decision, not the later settlement terms or current employer policy.

2018-08-29: The court revived an applicant’s pre-adverse-action claim for standing purposes while affirming dismissal of the disclosure claim. Allegedly losing a chance to respond to adverse report information could be concrete injury. This is historical FCRA litigation, not AI.

2018-07-13: The court affirmed judgment for State Farm because the applicant did not establish concrete injury or material risk of harm from the alleged FCRA notice violation. The case concerns background screening and federal standing, not AI or a general exemption from notice duties.

2018-08-20: The court held that overlap between ICRAA and CCRAA did not make ICRAA unconstitutionally vague as applied to employer background checks. Compliance with one statute did not eliminate applicable duties under the other. This concerns employee background investigations, not AI.

2017-08-01: The consolidated employment-background-check opinion rejected Article III standing based on the alleged disclosure defect without concrete informational or privacy injury. This is a historical jurisdictional decision, not a finding that all deficient screening forms comply with FCRA.

2020-04-24: The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer. Providing a standalone FCRA disclosure alongside other application materials was permissible; written authorization did not need its own standalone document. This is historical background-check litigation, not an AI case.

2020-03-20: The court found parts of an employment disclosure extraneous under FCRA and remanded the clarity issue. It rejected a claim that the pre-adverse-action notice had to offer a direct discussion with the employer. This historical case does not establish AI use.

2019-01-29: The court held that extraneous state-law information violated standalone disclosure requirements and that the form was conspicuous but unclear. It affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded. This is a background-check disclosure case, not AI litigation.

2017-03-20: The amended appellate opinion holds that including a liability waiver in a job applicant’s FCRA disclosure violates the standalone-document requirement and addresses willfulness. This concerns background-check paperwork, not AI.

2024-02-16: Applicant challenged a HireVue interview under Massachusetts’s lie-detector statute. A February 2024 order addressed the claims at the pleading stage. This historical ruling is not a final finding that the interview unlawfully detected lies. Later settlement or closure requires docket verification.

2026-09-30: Applicant alleged racial discrimination through AI-assisted recruiting. The court granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for insufficient factual allegations; it did not establish that AI discrimination occurred.

The EEOC’s September 11, 2023 announcement describes a consent decree, $365,000 for rejected applicants and at least five years of compliance monitoring. This is a settled enforcement case, not a currently pending liability action.

A proposed $3.75 million settlement received preliminary approval on June 25, 2026. The administrator lists final approval for October 28, 2026. Final approval has not yet occurred as of this check.

The court filed an order on July 24, 2026 vacating the August 4 dismissal hearing. The reviewed sources do not establish a later merits disposition; a current docket check is needed before publication.

An October 7, 2026 discovery order permits fifteen limited depositions of declarants supporting the class-certification motion. This is a discovery ruling, not a liability judgment.