The philanthropic arm of retiree advocacy group
AARP wants a California federal judge to reject software provider Workday's bid to toss a suit claiming its artificial intelligence tools discriminated against job applicants, arguing that disparate impact claims are fair game under federal age bias law.
The AARP Foundation asked the court Thursday for permission to file an
amicus brief in a collective action accusing
Workday Inc. of violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and other civil rights laws by using the AI tools to screen out job applicants based on their age and other identities.
The retirement advocacy organization said the court should reject Workday's arguments that the ADEA does not allow job applicants to lodge disparate impact discrimination claims under the law.
"This threshold issue has vast implications for millions of older adults seeking to enter or reenter the workforce, which is all the more important amidst a retirement crisis and the rising adoption of algorithmic screening practices that can contravene the clear text and remedial purpose of the ADEA," the AARP said.
The suit kicked off in 2023, when named plaintiff Derek Mobley alleged the company's AI tools discriminated against applicants by screening out workers based on their age, race and disability status in violation of Title VII, the ADEA and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin handed Mobley
collective certification on the ADEA claim in May, allowing him to represent an opt-in group of applicants 40 or older whose applications for jobs through Workday's platforms were denied. Mobley's bid for class certification is still working its way through the court.
The case is playing out amid a
fractured legal landscape for the concept of disparate impact. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April 2025 directing federal agencies to end inquiries into disparate impact bias, stating that the theory of liability forced employers to enforce racial balancing to dodge lawsuits, whereas New York and New Jersey recently created their own laws enshrining protections against disparate impact.
AARP pointed in its Thursday filing to precedent that the Northern District of California established in
Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. 
In the case, a class of job applicants claimed that PwC discriminated against job applicants 40 or older through its recruitment practices.
The court found through the course of the suit, which was ultimately settled for nearly $12 million in 2021, that the plain language of the ADEA allows job applicants to sue for disparate impact discrimination, the AARP said. That's because the law's protections apply to "any individual," according to its statutory text, which includes job applicants, the organization said.
"To foreclose disparate impact claims for job applicants would render the term 'individual' superfluous," the AARP said.
This court also recognized that the ADEA has the "broad" purpose of prohibiting age discrimination, which the AARP argued captures disparate impact claims for job applicants. The AARP also pointed to the
U.S. Supreme Court's 1971 landmark ruling in
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. , a case that established the disparate impact theory under Title VII.
While Griggs didn't deal with the ADEA, it considered identical statutory language laid out in Title VII, and found that the law's protections should extend to job applicants, the AARP said.
AARP is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to empowering Americans over age 50, according to its website, and has 38 million members.
William Alvarado Rivera, senior vice president of litigation at the AARP Foundation, said in a statement provided to Law360 that AI hiring tools cannot become a back door for age bias.
"Our brief underscores that when automated systems disproportionately screen out older workers, the law must ensure accountability and protect equal opportunity," Rivera said.
A Workday spokesperson told Law360 that the company believes the claims in the suit are false, adding that its AI tools are not trained to use or identify characteristics such as race, age or disability.
Counsel for the proposed class did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The AARP Foundation is represented by in-house counsel Victoria Williamson and Louis Lopez.
The collective is represented by Lee D. Winston, Roderick T. Cooks and Bethany M. Logan of
Winston Cooks LLC, by Jay Greene of Greene Estate Probate and Elder Law Firm and by Robert L. Wiggins Jr., Ann K. Wiggins and Jennifer Wiggins Smith of
Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb LLC.
Workday is represented by Julie A. Totten, Erin M. Connell, Kayla D. Grundy and Alexandria R. Elliott of
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
The case is Mobley v. Workday Inc., case number
3:23-cv-00770, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Additional reporting by Hailey Konnath. Editing by Neil Cohen.
Update: This article has been updated with comment from Workday.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.