Topics · 05

AI in Employment & Algorithmic Workforce Management

Governing AI applications across recruitment, scheduling, task dispatch, performance appraisal and workplace management, ensuring algorithmic transparency, non-discrimination and human oversight.

What legal duties must employers fulfill when algorithms direct hiring, evaluation and workforce management?

Key Trigger Scenarios

HR systems using algorithms for automated CV screening, AI video interviews or candidate ranking
Algorithms directing scheduling, task allocation, performance metrics, discipline or dismissal
Procuring third-party HRTech algorithms, assessment tools or employee surveillance systems
Workers challenging algorithmic scores, monitoring, task allocation or automated actions

Preliminary Due Diligence & Materials

01Audit HR algorithm capabilities, input parameters, vendor commitments and evaluation uses
02Enforce mandatory human review on all critical employment decisions, prohibiting automated dismissals
03Comply with statutory consultation and disclosure duties regarding workplace algorithmic rules
04Preserve system versions, evaluation criteria, human review notes and worker communications

Selected Cases

Judicial Trends & Regulatory Standards

Read each case in its procedural context. Related cases may offer comparisons across technologies; they do not establish a single rule for every system.

United States

U.S. Workday Hiring Algorithm Case

Applicants allege that Workday's algorithmic screening tools caused discrimination based on race, age, sex, and disability. The court previously held that a technology vendor performing traditional recruitment functions may act as an employer's agent, and in 2026 confirmed that applicants may pursue disparate-impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Proceedings Ongoing

The court again held that job applicants may bring disparate-impact claims under the ADEA.
The California-law claims and one added plaintiff's disability claim were dismissed with leave to amend; the remaining challenged claims continued.

View Case Study →Netherlands

Netherlands Ola Driver Data Access Case

Ride-hailing drivers sought access to platform data used for scoring, fraud detection, earning profiles, and wage deductions. The court distinguished between general profiling, dispatch algorithms, and automated deductions with significant effects, ordering the platform to disclose specific categories of underlying data.

First-Instance Order

The court ordered Ola to disclose the personal data and segment classifications used to generate certain driver profiles.
Standard automated dispatching was held not to produce significant effects in this case.

View Case Study →Spain

Spain Glovo Couriers Case

Glovo organized delivery services through its platform, rating systems, automated order dispatch, and geolocation tracking. The Supreme Court of Spain held that an employment relationship existed between the courier and the platform, citing algorithmic management and the platform's control over essential assets.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of Spain recognized the relationship as an employment relationship.
The court held that Glovo organized and provided the delivery service, integrating couriers into its business operational structure.

View Case Study →

Related Services