A court let an ADA claim against Workday proceed, and a new lawsuit accuses Meta of using algorithmic tools that disproportionately harmed workers with disabilities or medical restrictions.
Both cases turn on 2 questions: whether AI effectively made the decision despite nominal human review, and whether the underlying data penalized protected leave, accommodations or disability-related absences.
In Mobley v. Workday, the screening system allegedly used employment patterns that could proxy for disability; in Doe v. Meta, plaintiffs challenge layoff selections tied to profiling and performance-scoring systems.
Workday and Meta deny the allegations, but the cases widen legal scrutiny beyond hiring and layoffs to any AI-supported employment decision where managers may simply ratify flawed rankings.
For employers, the broader lesson is that documented human oversight and audits of model inputs both matter, as courts increasingly examine AI governance as well as outcomes.