With the Colorado legislative session well underway, we have identified several bills of interest that Colorado employers should monitor. If enacted, these bills would expand worker protections and require certain employers to update their policies or procedures. While several of the bills authorize a private right of action, awareness and proactive compliance can help employers avoid costly litigation.
Employers nationwide have a new kind of employee in the workplace: the GPT employee. These employees are empowered by the latest and greatest version of free and publicly available generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), which comes fully loaded with buzzwords but often little substance. GPT employees also like to fancy themselves as amateur lawyers lurking in the shadows, although their work product is anything but discrete and often not accurate.
Earlier this month, our team published an in-depth article for federal contractors on navigating WARN Act compliance amid government shutdowns and federal contract cancellations. Since then, we’ve been closely monitoring the broader wave of workforce reductions affecting not only government contractors but employers across industries and company sizes.
In the closely watched case Mobley v. Workday, the Northern District of California recently granted preliminary certification of a collective action for age discrimination claims against Workday’s AI-based applicant recommendation system. The court’s order allows the plaintiff to notify similarly situated individuals of the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to opt-in to having their claims heard collectively.
The Northern District of California issued an eagerly awaited decision last month in Mobley v. Workday, Inc., where a job applicant claims that Workday’s artificial intelligence (AI) job applicant screening tools violate federal and California anti-discrimination laws. Workday moved to dismiss the claims, on the basis that it is not a covered employer under any of the applicable anti-discrimination laws, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s intentional discrimination claims and an aiding and abetting claim under California’s anti-discrimination law, but allowed disparate impact discrimination claims to proceed against Workday based on the argument that Workday was an “agent” of the employers to which the job applicant applied.