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

Job applicants allege that Workday’s screening tools caused discriminatory outcomes. Earlier rulings allowed claims under an employer-agent theory and the ADEA. On June 22, 2026, the court allowed most FEHA claims and Hughes’s amended ADA claim to proceed, while dismissing certain claims added without leave. These pleading-stage rulings do not establish that the tools actually caused unlawful discrimination.

Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part; remaining claims in discovery

The 6 March order again allowed ADEA disparate-impact claims. This was the district court’s interpretation in this litigation, not a uniform final nationwide rule.
On 22 June, most FEHA claims and Hughes’s ADA claim survived. Rowe’s race disparate-impact claim added without leave and direct-employer claims about Workday’s own hiring were dismissed without further leave.

View Case Study →Netherlands

Netherlands Ola Driver Data Access Case

UK drivers sought personal data and explanations concerning Ola’s scoring, fraud detection, income profiles, allocation and deductions. The first-instance court partly allowed access in 2021. In 2023 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal found that the fraud-probability scores, income profiles and allocation at issue had significant effects and ordered further explanations.

First-instance order; partly reversed on appeal on 4 April 2023

The appellate court partly reversed the first instance, finding that the specified fraud scores, income profiles and allocation were solely automated decisions with significant effects under GDPR Articles 22(1) and 15(1)(h).
Ola had to explain relevant factors, their aggregate-level weights and information needed to understand the reasoning. Guardian alerts did not meet the same threshold on these facts.

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