U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California v. Workday, Inc.
Derek Mobley filed a class action lawsuit in federal court, alleging that Workday's AI-based hiring tools discriminated against job applicants based on race, age, and disability. The court granted preliminary collective certification for the age discrimination claim in May 2025, allowing the case to proceed.
Key takeaway — how to prevent this
AI that denies insurance claims or benefits must preserve meaningful human review of medical necessity; automated mass denials draw bad-faith, breach-of-contract and class-action liability.
Case brief
Read from the order on 2026-09-19. Every holding carries a short verbatim quote from that text.
- Decided by
- United States District Court Northern District of California
- Parties
- Derek L. Mobley v. Workday, Inc.
- Decision date
- July 25, 2023
- Remedy
- The Court ordered the plaintiff to file a response by July 31, 2023, showing cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and suspended briefing pending that response.
- Appeal
- Appeal status not stated
Key holdings
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute after counsel failed to demonstrate authorization to practice in the district.
“the Court ORDERS plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” — page 1
The court suspended briefing on the motion pending the plaintiff's response to the order to show cause.
“Briefing is hereby SUSPENDED pending plaintiff’s response to this order.” — page 1
In plain English
In a lawsuit brought by Derek L. Mobley against Workday, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the court issued an order requiring the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order was issued on July 25, 2023. The procedural issue arose after plaintiff's attorney requested an extension of time to respond to defendant Workday's motion to dismiss, noted in court records as entry 19. On page four of that request, the attorney represented that his application to practice temporarily in the district was pending. However, the court found that the attorney had not filed an application to practice in this district. Furthermore, the attorney failed to include his state bar number on the first page of the filing, violating local court rules. Because the attorney had not shown he was licensed to practice in the district, and to preserve judicial efficiency, the court halted all briefing. The court directed the plaintiff to submit a response by July 31, 2023, explaining why the case should remain active and not be dismissed.
Inclusion does not imply wrongdoing or liability. A filed lawsuit is an allegation, not a court finding. Status reflects the latest information we have — always check the official source for current status.