Workday is among the AI-driven hiring platforms drawing scrutiny amid growing concerns that automated screening can quietly replicate—or amplify—bias in employment decisions. Investigators are looking at allegations that algorithmic tools may disadvantage certain groups (including older applicants and people with disabilities) and that rapid, after-hours rejections suggest applications may be filtered out without meaningful human review. This comes as AI is now routine in recruiting—used to rank resumes, assess “fit,” schedule interviews, and score video responses—especially in high-volume hiring, where even small errors or biased patterns can affect large numbers of applicants.

The investigation was initiated because some AI hiring outputs may function like “consumer reports” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), triggering strict federal requirements that many applicants may never realize apply to hiring tech. Under the FCRA, entities that provide employment-related reports about a person’s characteristics or reputation may need to follow “maximum possible accuracy” standards, provide access to files on request, investigate disputes, and ensure proper disclosures, written authorizations, and adverse-action notices when a report contributes to a rejection. If Workday’s screening products or related employer practices are found to fit within this framework, the case could be significant not only for potential monetary recovery but also for forcing changes in how AI screening is disclosed, explained, and audited.

Broader implications are already visible in parallel disputes and enforcement actions: the EEOC’s case against iTutorGroup alleged age-based automatic rejections and resulted in a settlement, while other complaints have challenged AI video interview scoring and accommodations for deaf applicants, and a separate lawsuit has alleged Workday’s tools discriminate against people over 40. These matters reflect an industry-wide pressure point where civil rights laws (e.g., age and disability protections) intersect with consumer-reporting rules, privacy and biometric data concerns, and regulators like the FTC signaling that “screening services” can fall under FCRA obligations when they generate evaluative profiles used for employment decisions

Defendant Companies: HireVue, Workday, Greenhouse, Lever (Employ Inc.), Ashby

Alleged Violations: Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations (allegedly providing consumer reports for employment screening without complying with FCRA requirements such as accuracy procedures, disclosures, access to files, and dispute investigations), Potential employment discrimination and biased hiring outcomes caused by AI screening tools (e.g., age, race, disability, sex bias) (discussed as a risk/related litigation), Potential unlawful collection/use of sensitive or biometric data without proper consent (privacy/data security concerns referenced)

Case Status: Under Investigation

Affected Product or Service: AI-driven job applicant screening, interview, and pre-employment assessment tools used by employers (including AI video interviews and automated resume/application screening)

Eligibility Requirements: Applied for a job within the past two years, The employer used AI as part of the hiring process (screening and/or interview), The AI process may have produced an automated assessment or score about you that influenced hiring decisions, You were rejected or otherwise experienced an adverse hiring decision potentially tied to AI screening, You may not have received required FCRA notices, a standalone disclosure, or provided written authorization (where applicable), You may have been denied access to the report/assessment, lacked a chance to dispute errors, or suspect inaccuracies in the information used, Your application involved an AI hiring vendor such as HireVue, Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, or similar tools (not limited to these)

Source: https://www.classaction.org/ai-interview-screening-lawsuits/