AI Is Scoring Job Applicants. What the Eightfold and Workday Lawsuits Mean for You

Two US lawsuits are testing whether job seekers have any say over AI scoring in hiring. One claims that Eightfold AI's applicant scores should carry credit-report-style rights to disclosure, access, and dispute, and the other claims that Workday's screening tools discriminate. Neither case has produced a final decision on whether the tools broke the law, so you do not have a new right to see your score yet, but there are still practical steps you can take.

This post explains where each case stood in the most recent sources we could check, what is still unknown, and what to do during your search in the meantime. It is general information and not legal advice. Both cases are moving, so check the current docket before relying on any status described here.

The Eightfold case: is an AI match score a consumer report?

The case is Kistler v. Eightfold AI Inc., a proposed class action filed in California state court in January 2026. According to an analysis by the law firm Jones Walker, the complaint alleges that Eightfold collected data on over a billion workers, including information beyond what candidates submitted, generated "Match Scores" from zero to five, and filtered out lower-ranked candidates before a human reviewed them.

The unusual part is the legal theory. As Jones Walker describes it, the complaint does not argue that the algorithm is biased. It argues that the process was undisclosed and violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), because applicants were not told about the reports, did not get copies, and had no opportunity to dispute errors.

Eightfold denies this. Jones Walker quotes the company as saying its platform "operates on data intentionally shared by candidates or provided by our customers." These are allegations and a denial. No court has found them to be true.

Where it stands

According to a case summary from OpenClassActions, an information and referral site rather than a court source, Eightfold moved the case to federal court in Northern California in March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss in April. Briefing finished in July, the court cancelled the scheduled hearing, and the motion was still pending as of a September 24 docket check. The same summary reports no certified class, no settlement, and no claim form. We could not find a ruling as of this writing, though one may have been issued since.

Why the theory matters to you

If you have ever been through a background check, you have seen how FCRA works. The FTC's guide for employers explains the steps: when an employer uses a consumer report, it must give notice and get your written permission first. Before rejecting you because of the report, it must give you a copy and a summary of your rights. Afterward, it must tell you how to dispute errors with the company that produced it.

Applying that process to AI match scores would be a big change, because today a low score can be invisible to the person it affects. That is why this case is worth following even if you have never heard of Eightfold. But the whole question is still open. A dismissal would not mean that AI scoring is unregulated, and a win for the plaintiffs at this early stage would not give you an immediate way to see your score.

The Workday case: can the software vendor be responsible?

Mobley v. Workday takes a more familiar route: discrimination law. The plaintiffs allege that Workday's applicant-recommendation tools have a disparate impact, including on applicants aged 40 and over.

In May 2025, Judge Rita Lin granted preliminary certification of a nationwide age-discrimination collective, according to Holland & Knight. The group covers applicants aged 40 and over who were denied employment recommendations through Workday's platform since September 24, 2020, and people must opt in to take part. This is a procedural step and not a finding that discrimination happened. Workday says the suit lacks merit.

The case has continued through 2026. In a June 22 order summarized by Duane Morris, the court declined to dismiss California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims and one plaintiff's disability claim, which alleges that algorithmic tools can use proxies for illness, such as medical-related leave. The same order dismissed a race claim that had been added without permission and struck a theory that Workday acted as a direct employer. So the outcome was mixed, and the core questions remain unresolved.

The part that matters most for you: both cases target the company that makes the tool, not only the employer that used it. If that approach succeeds, more vendors could have reason to test and document how their products treat applicants.

What these cases have not settled

It is easy to read headlines about these cases and draw conclusions they do not support. As of the sources above:

• No court has ruled that AI scoring is illegal in itself. These cases concern specific products, statutes, and allegations.
• You do not have a new right to see your score because of these cases. Any existing access comes from other rules or from the employer.
• A low score has not been shown to be the reason for any one rejection. Your application may have been turned down for ordinary reasons, including competition or a mismatch with the role.
• It remains unclear which employers use which features. A careers site running on a given platform does not tell you whether AI scoring is switched on or how heavily a recruiter relies on it.

What you can do during your search now

Make your application readable to any reviewer

You usually cannot tell what is reading your resume, so write for both. Use the job's own language where it honestly applies, name your skills explicitly, and describe results in plain terms. Tailoring your resume to the job description is useful whether the first reader is a model or a recruiter. Stay away from tricks. Hidden text aimed at AI screeners can make things worse.

Check your public profiles

The Eightfold complaint alleges the use of data beyond what candidates submit, and Eightfold disputes that. Either way, your public footprint is worth a look for human recruiters alone. Make sure your dates and titles on LinkedIn match your resume, and correct anything out of date.

Read the notices you normally skip

Application privacy notices and consent screens may mention automated tools, assessment vendors, and how to request your data. You can also just ask. Our guide on how to tell whether an employer uses AI to screen applications covers the signs to look for and which local disclosure rules exist.

Use your privacy rights if you have them

Depending on where you live, privacy law may let you ask a company what personal information it holds about you. California's Consumer Privacy Act, for example, gives California residents a right to ask covered businesses what personal information they have collected. Results vary and a response may not include any score, but a request costs little if you have a specific reason to ask.

Keep simple records

For each application, note the employer, date, role, the platform it ran on, and how quickly any rejection arrived. Save a copy of the posting too, since postings tend to disappear. A weekly tracking system already does most of this, and it also shows you which versions of your resume get responses.

Do not let one channel decide your search

Whatever the courts decide, an online form is only one way in. Referrals and direct messages to hiring managers put a person in the process earlier, so a single automated step carries less weight.

Know where to go if you suspect discrimination

Instant or very fast rejections are not evidence of discrimination by themselves, and they are often explained by knockout questions or other rules. But if you have real reason for concern, do not wait. The EEOC's page on time limits for filing a charge explains the deadlines, generally 180 calendar days, extended to 300 in many places. An employment lawyer or your state's fair employment agency can advise on your situation.

What to watch next

Three things are worth tracking over the coming months: the ruling on Eightfold's motion to dismiss, which will show whether the FCRA theory survives its first test; further orders in the Workday case; and state rules such as those in Colorado and New York City that give applicants notice rights without any lawsuit. Until then, assume that a person or a system might be reading your application, and make it clear, honest, and specific enough to work for both.