ADA

Subscribe to ADA via RSS

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.    

Democrats and Republicans within the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have recently expressed bipartisan interest in raising or eliminating the statutory caps on damages for claims brought under Title VII and the ADA. While the plan is still in its very early stages, any revisions to statutory damages caps would have significant implications for employers.

U.S. Supreme Court, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

For the past year, businesses and attorneys alike have been impatiently awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether a “tester” plaintiff – a person with a disability who examines compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) – has standing to bring a lawsuit when a place of public accommodation is allegedly out of compliance with the ADA. Unfortunately, the unanimous opinion issued by the Court on December 5, 2023 kicked the can down the road on this critical issue, leaving us longing for more.