AI Bias Is a Legal Risk: What the Workday Case Means for Employees and Students
Artificial intelligence is now woven into nearly every part of modern life — from hiring and grading systems to workplace and school evaluations. But when technology makes decisions that affect real people, the question becomes: who’s accountable when the algorithm gets it wrong?
A recent case, Mobley v. Workday, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024), is helping to answer that question. In that case, a federal judge allowed a class-action lawsuit to proceed against Workday, whose AI-driven recruiting software allegedly screened out applicants based on race, age, and disability. The court rejected Workday’s defense that it was “just a vendor,” ruling that companies deploying biased algorithms may still face liability under the ADA, Title VII, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Why It Matters
This case marks a turning point. It confirms that AI tools are not above the law. If an automated system contributes to discrimination, the employer — and sometimes the software company — can still be held accountable.
For employees and job applicants, that means hiring bias or wrongful exclusion based on a “machine’s” decision can still violate civil rights laws.
For students, the same principle applies: automated grading, behavioral evaluations, or “predictive” analytics that penalize students with disabilities can raise serious IDEA and Section 504 concerns.
The Broader Message
Whether it’s an employer using an algorithm to “screen out” candidates or a school district using AI to assess student behavior, automation doesn’t erase responsibility. The same civil rights protections that apply to human decision-makers still apply to AI.
How Baikow Disability and Education Law Group Helps
At Baikow Disability and Education Law Group, we represent employees, students, and parents who are harmed by unfair or biased systems — including the use of automated tools that discriminate or deny accommodations. We investigate, advocate, and litigate under the ADA, IDEA, Section 504, Title IX, and related laws to ensure that both human and technological decisions comply with civil rights standards.
Technology may evolve, but accountability remains the same.
How the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA is affecting Discrimination Law
There’s been a lot of confusion lately about what’s really changed with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. President Trump’s recent Executive Order on “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” has received wide attention — but its reach is limited. The order applies directly to federal agencies, contractors, and grant recipients, not all private employers. Some parts of it have already been challenged in court, so enforcement remains uncertain and will likely vary by agency until the courts clarify what can stand. That said, the order clearly signals a new federal posture against DEI programs that use race or gender as a factor in hiring, contracting, or training, and organizations tied to federal funding should be reviewing their certifications carefully.
The Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) decision doesn’t directly change employment law either — it dealt with college admissions under the Equal Protection Clause — but its logic is spreading. The ruling emphasized that any use of race must meet strict scrutiny, and that “racial balancing” is unconstitutional. Employment law already follows a similar principle under Title VII, but after SFFA, some judges and agencies are interpreting DEI hiring or promotion goals more narrowly. In practice, this means that employers who use race-based preferences, quotas, or “diversity statements” as hiring criteria could face greater risk of reverse-discrimination claims.
The IEE Advantage: Your Right to an Independent Educational Evaluation
If you fundamentally disagree with the school district's evaluation of your child, whether it minimizes the disability, misses a diagnosis, or fails to recommend the necessary services, you have a crucial legal right: the Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). An IEE is an assessment conducted by a qualified professional who is not employed by the school district, ensuring an unbiased, fresh perspective. This is your most powerful tool for ensuring an accurate diagnosis and appropriate service recommendation. You must request the IEE in writing, and once you do, the school district has only two choices: it must either agree to fund the IEE at public expense, or it must immediately file for a Due Process Hearing to prove that its own evaluation was appropriate.
For parents, this right levels the playing field, shifting the burden and the expense onto the district. If the school district fails to file for Due Process to defend their evaluation, or if the hearing officer rules against the district, the school must pay for the independent evaluator of your choice (within reasonable, public expense limits). The most important takeaway is that the IEE results must be considered by the IEP team when making placement and service decisions. This leverage allows you to challenge an inadequate school evaluation and secure the comprehensive, accurate information needed to advocate for a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for your child.
IEP vs. 504 Plan Implications for Parents
When a child begins to struggle in school, navigating the world of educational support can feel overwhelming. Parents quickly encounter two distinct and often confusing legal terms: the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the 504 Plan. Choosing the wrong path can mean the difference between getting the specialized instruction your child needs and settling for basic, insufficient accommodations. Understanding the core difference is the first, most crucial step in successful advocacy for your child.
The practical implications for parents choosing between an IEP (Individualized Education Program) and a 504 Plan center on accountability and parental rights. An IEP, governed by the special education law IDEA, offers a higher degree of protection: schools must have parental consent for evaluation, are held accountable for the child meeting measurable annual goals, and parents have access to strong, formal Due Process Hearings if they disagree with the plan.
Conversely, the 504 Plan, governed by civil rights law, focuses strictly on equal access and accommodations; it does not set measurable academic goals or require progress reports, and its dispute resolution process is generally less formalized. Therefore, parents must push for an IEP if their child needs specialized instruction and measurable progress, but should secure a 504 Plan if the child only needs accommodations to level the playing field due to a medical or mental health condition.
Your most powerful tool is your voice, but your most effective tool is a pen. If you believe your child needs support, do not wait for the school to suggest it. Take action by submitting a formal written request to the school administration (principal or Director of Special Education) asking for a comprehensive evaluation for special education services under IDEA.
Gifted Education Programming
Gifted education, while essential for advanced students, often struggles with a major issue of equity and access. As a former civil rights litigator and attorney for school districts, I've seen firsthand how the identification processes—relying on subjective referrals or culturally biased assessments—can inadvertently violate a student’s right to fair access under the principles of Title VI and Title IX. The result is often the systemic exclusion of high-potential students from diverse socioeconomic, racial, and linguistic backgrounds. Furthermore, the Twice-Exceptional (2e) student—who is both gifted and disabled—is frequently overlooked, as their disability may mask their high ability, or vice versa. These students have the right to both services, and any system that denies one based on the existence of the other is failing its civil rights mandate.
For both parents and school leaders, moving toward equity requires deliberate, systemic action. Parents should advocate for non-discriminatory, multi-faceted identification that includes non-verbal or portfolio assessments, rather than relying solely on standardized tests. For organizations, the critical step is to conduct a proactive equity audit of the gifted program roster; if the demographics don't mirror the school's population, the identification system is biased and exposing the district to risk. By applying a legal and civil rights lens to gifted education, we move beyond basic compliance and ensure these vital programs operate with true integrity and inclusion for every child.
Your Right to Work From Home: What Disabled Employees Need to Know
The COVID-19 pandemic proved that many of us can be just as effective working from the kitchen table as we are in the office. If you have a disability that makes coming into the workplace difficult or impossible, this shift is critical for your rights. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you can still perform the core duties of your job, your employer must provide a "reasonable accommodation"—and that often means allowing you to work remotely.
While many companies are demanding "return-to-office," courts are increasingly skeptical of an employer's simple claim that "being present" is an essential function of your job. The law requires a close look at what you actually do. If your essential duties—like financial reporting or making calls—can be done from your home computer, judges are likely to side with you, regardless of what your employer puts on a job description. The key is showing that remote work allows you to perform the fundamental tasks that your job requires.
Workplace Gossip Is Gender Harassment: Third Circuit Cracks Down on Toxic Rumors ⚖️
If you are a victim of persistent, humiliating workplace rumors, a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has significantly strengthened your right to a harassment free work environment.
In a powerful decision, the court ruled in Cuff v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections that an employee subjected to persistent, gendered rumors—specifically accusations of trading sexual favors for workplace benefits—can sue for unlawful harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This ruling sends a critical message to employers: Gossip is not always "just gossip"—when rooted in gender bias, it is a form of illegal discrimination.
What This Means for Employees
If you face relentless, gender based rumors in your workplace, the Cuff ruling is a powerful tool. You do not have to endure a toxic environment where your professional reputation is undermined by sexualized stereotypes.
Take Action: Document every incident, report the harassment to HR or management, and preserve any evidence related to your complaints.
If your employer minimizes your concerns or fails to act, you need an advocate on your side. We stand ready to hold employers accountable when they allow toxic gossip to destroy careers.
If you have been subjected to hostile, gender based rumors or workplace discrimination, contact us today for a confidential consultation.
Major Legal Battle Over Student Communication: What Parents Need to Know
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Le Pape v. Lower Merion School District (June 4, 2024), highlights the struggle parents face when advocating for nonverbal students to use new communication techniques in school.
The case involved a student with autism whose parents requested the school adopt a method called "Spelling to Communicate" (S2C) into his Individualized Education Program (IEP).
The district resisted, citing a lack of published research, leading to a long legal fight that included claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
Ultimately, the court sided with the school district, finding they did not deny the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) because the district’s initial skepticism was reasonable and existing communication methods were already deemed functional.
This decision underscores a critical lesson for parents: while you have the right to request new accommodations, courts place a heavy burden on you to prove that a school’s existing methods are inappropriate and that the new method is medically or scientifically effective when challenging the school's professional judgment.
If seeking money damages under the ADA, the burden of proof is even higher, requiring evidence of intentional discrimination.
The key takeaway for special education parents is to always have robust medical documentation from treating physicians and outside experts to support why the school’s current plan is failing and how a specific new method is necessary for your child's well being and educational progress.