Facts supporting exemplary damages could include proof that a hiring-system company knew its screening tools harmed protected applicants yet deliberately kept using them. The evidence must connect that conscious disregard to a corporate officer, director, or managing agent—not merely show unfair outcomes. No court has found that Workday discriminated or owes exemplary damages. The case remains pending, although the federal court refused to dismiss the plaintiffs' punitive-damages request on March 6, 2026.
Table of Contents
- What must an exemplary-damages claimant prove?
- What evidence could connect the algorithm to rejection?
- What patterns could support discriminatory causation?
- What could show conscious disregard by leadership?
- Limits, counterevidence, and practical records to preserve
What must an exemplary-damages claimant prove?
"Exemplary damages," commonly called punitive damages, punish especially wrongful conduct rather than simply compensate a loss. Under California Civil Code § 3294, a claimant must prove oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence. For corporate liability, the required misconduct, authorization, or ratification must reach an officer, director, or managing agent.
That makes company leadership evidence crucial. A serious defect known only to a lower-level employee may not establish the necessary corporate state of mind. The March 2026 ruling means only that the plaintiffs may continue pursuing punitive damages. It does not prove discriminatory screening, conscious disregard, or entitlement to an award.
What evidence could connect the algorithm to rejection?
A claimant would first need to show that the system caused or materially shaped the rejection. Useful records could identify which tool scored, ranked, recommended, advanced, or screened out each applicant before an interview. That distinction matters when an employer claims its own criteria produced the result.
In May 2025, the court found plausible allegations that Workday's tools recommended some candidates and rejected others at the interview gateway, according to the Northern District of California's decision. Relevant evidence could include: Rapid rejections outside normal business hours may support an inference of automated screening. They do not, standing alone, prove discrimination or the heightened misconduct required for exemplary damages.
- Applicant-level scores, rankings, rejection codes, and timestamps
- The system version and customer configuration used for each application
- Records showing whether a person reviewed the application
- Comparisons between stated qualifications and automated outcomes
- Documentation separating customer rules from the vendor's recommendations
What patterns could support discriminatory causation?
Repeated outcomes become more informative when they involve many applications, qualified candidates, or similarly situated people. The strongest pleaded pattern in Mobley involved a Black applicant over 40 with depression and anxiety who received more than 100 rejections from Workday-processed applications, including rapid, off-hours responses. Other applicants reported hundreds of applications and near-universal rejection. At least one allegedly received an automated rejection despite meeting the stated qualifications.
The court treated those accounts as sufficient for preliminary collective treatment of the age claim, not as a final finding of liability. Proxy inputs could help explain a pattern. Graduation year, college attended, ZIP code, employment history, disability-related gaps, and personality-test results may allow a facially neutral system to sort applicants in ways associated with protected status. A useful comparison would examine whether similarly qualified applicants received different scores or recommendations after accounting for job requirements. The analysis should also identify configuration differences, applicant-pool differences, and human intervention that might offer another explanation.
What could show conscious disregard by leadership?
A discriminatory effect and a culpable corporate state of mind are separate questions. In July 2024, the court allowed disparate-impact theories to proceed but dismissed earlier intentional race-and-age claims because awareness of adverse consequences did not plausibly establish an intent to discriminate. Evidence becomes more significant if it shows that decision-makers received credible warnings and continued deployment without adequate correction. Potential proof includes internal audits, bias-test results, applicant or customer complaints, executive communications, meeting records, and decisions made after leadership learned of recurring disparities.
The timing and recipients of each warning matter. A claimant would want records showing what a qualifying corporate decision-maker knew, when that person knew it, what authority the person held, and what action followed. Workday says Candidate Skills Match uses machine learning, undergoes periodic bias testing, and remains subject to customers' anti-discrimination compliance duties. Those representations could make the underlying test methods, reported findings, escalation procedures, and responses to detected problems important evidence.
Limits, counterevidence, and practical records to preserve
Workday reports that a commissioned analysis found no disparate impact for HiredScore Spotlight. That analysis covered only five high-volume New York-area job profiles from September 2025 through February 2026, and Workday says results may vary with configuration, applicant pools, and human review. That evidence may support the company for the tested tool and settings, but it does not automatically resolve claims involving another product, period, job profile, or configuration.
A claimant would need evidence tied to the system that actually processed the disputed applications. Applicants considering a claim should preserve: Applicants should keep original files and avoid altering metadata where possible. The most useful record is often a complete application timeline that counsel can compare with system logs obtained during litigation.
- Job postings and listed qualifications
- Submitted résumés, assessments, and application confirmations
- Rejection emails with complete timestamps
- Screenshots identifying the platform and employer
- A spreadsheet of applications, dates, outcomes, and interview invitations
You Might Also Like
- Severe Turbulence Causing Unrestrained Passenger Injuries: Which Economic and Non-Economic Damages Could Be Available?
- An AI Companion Allegedly Encouraging Self-Harm: Which Economic and Non-Economic Damages Could Be Available?
- Punitive Damages Awarded as SkyWest Loses Airline Harassment Verdict Appeal