What began as a long and exhausting job hunt for one man has now turned into a major legal test for how artificial intelligence is used in hiring in the United States.
Derrick Mobley, an African American professional over 40 who also lives with a disability, lost his IT job around 2017. After that, he found himself dealing with anxiety and depression while trying to return to work. A graduate of Morehouse College with a degree in finance, Mobley had experience across IT, finance, and customer service. Like many others, he turned to online job portals to restart his career.
What followed was a cycle that did not seem to end. Mobley applied to more than 150 roles, many through companies that used hiring tools built by Workday. Each time, the result was the same. Rejection. In some cases, the responses came within minutes, even at odd hours.
READ: Can doctors be sued for not using AI? (
“Terrible. I mean, financial stress. Emotional stress. I just kept getting a lot of no’s. It was just rejection, after rejection, after rejection,” he told The Wall Street Journal, describing the toll the process took on him.
For months, nothing changed. Then one email made him pause. It arrived at around 1:30 in the morning on a weekend.
“One day I was looking at my phone and I got an email and it was at a very odd time of the day… 1:30 in the morning, and it was on a weekend,” he said. That moment raised a simple question in his mind. “Who’s actually looking at my resume or my application at that time of day and that time of the weekend?”
That doubt quickly turned into a larger realisation. “That basically was the watershed moment… I started thinking, this is not a human. This is a bot.”
From there, Mobley began to question whether automated systems were filtering him out before any recruiter could even see his application. These tools are now widely used by companies to sort resumes and shortlist candidates, often without job seekers knowing how decisions are being made.
Even as he continued applying for roles he believed he was qualified for, sometimes even overqualified, his suspicion grew stronger. “I’m smelling the smoke, not necessarily seeing the fire, but I’m definitely smelling the smoke,” he said, explaining his belief that something in the system was working against him.
In February 2023, he decided to take legal action. He filed a case in federal court in California, Mobley v. Workday, Inc., accusing the company of enabling hiring systems that unfairly screen out candidates like him.
At the center of the lawsuit is the idea of “disparate impact.” This means a system can still be discriminatory in its outcomes, even if there was no clear intent to discriminate. His complaint argues that automated hiring tools should not be assumed to be neutral when it comes to race, age, or disability.
READ: Is the Pentagon about to deploy 1500 troops to Minnesota? (January 19, 2026)
Mobley also claimed that Workday’s platform plays a direct role in hiring decisions by recommending or rejecting candidates, which could make it act like an “agent” for employers. Workday, on the other hand, has argued that it only provides software and does not make final hiring decisions.
In July 2024, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin allowed the case to move forward, rejecting Workday’s attempt to dismiss it early. The court said Mobley had presented enough evidence to suggest the platform may be involved in decision making, including screening candidates in ways that affect outcomes.
The case has since moved into the discovery phase, where both sides are gathering evidence. In February 2026, the court also allowed it to proceed as a nationwide collective action, expanding its potential impact.
So far, the legal battle has seen mixed outcomes. The court allowed claims under age discrimination law to continue and acknowledged that AI hiring tools could, in some cases, function as agents of employers. At the same time, some of Mobley’s claims, including certain state-level and disability-related arguments, were dismissed.
As the case continues, it is being closely watched for what it could mean for the growing use of AI in recruitment and whether these systems can be held accountable for the way they shape people’s chances at getting a job.