Who's Involved?

Unlike Mobley v. Workday, this case has two named plaintiffs from the start - and it was brought with the backing of a former federal civil rights regulator and a nonprofit legal organization, not filed solo.

Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik, the plaintiffs

Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik are the two named plaintiffs bringing this case, both described in news coverage as California residents with STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) backgrounds. According to reporting, Kistler applied to jobs including at PayPal through Eightfold's platform, and Bhaumik has applied since 2023 to positions with Microsoft and other employers that use Eightfold. Both allege they were screened out of jobs they were qualified for without ever getting a human review of their application. Kistler is quoted in HR Dive's coverage saying she'd applied to "hundreds of jobs" but felt "an unseen force" was stopping her from being fairly considered. They're suing "on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated" - meaning they're seeking to represent a much larger group of applicants as a class action, not just resolve their own individual cases. (source: HR Dive, Jones Walker LLP)

Their lawyers: Outten & Golden LLP and Towards Justice

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at two organizations working together. Outten & Golden LLP is a law firm that focuses on employment law; the attorneys named in coverage of this case include Christopher M. McNerney, Allison Aaronson, and Jenny R. Yang. Towards Justice is a nonprofit legal organization focused on workers' rights; its attorneys on this case include Rachel W. Dempsey, David Seligman, and Seth Frotman. Both organizations' names appear on the federal court docket as counsel for Kistler and Bhaumik. (source: federal court docket, case 3:26-cv-01768, Outten & Golden's own case page)

Jenny R. Yang, former EEOC chair

Jenny R. Yang, a partner at Outten & Golden, previously served as Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) - the federal agency that enforces workplace discrimination law - during the Obama administration. Her involvement is a signal of how seriously this case's legal theory is being taken in employment-law circles, even though the EEOC itself is not a party to this lawsuit and has taken no official position on it. In HR Dive's coverage, Yang said that "as hiring tools evolve, AI companies like Eightfold must comply with these common-sense legal safeguards meant to protect everyday Americans," and that these are the kinds of harms Congress meant to prevent when it passed the FCRA. (source: HR Dive)

Eightfold AI Inc., the defendant

Eightfold AI Inc. is the company being sued. It's a privately held AI company founded in 2016, headquartered in Santa Clara, California, that sells what it calls a "Talent Intelligence Platform" to large employers - software that helps companies source, screen, and manage job candidates and existing employees using AI. The complaint itself states Eightfold has "a growing list of over 100 customers - including Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Starbucks, BNY, Paypal, Chevron and Bayer." Eightfold disputes the lawsuit's characterization of its data practices; see In the Media for its full statement. (source: Built In San Francisco; the complaint itself, paragraph 8)

For what's actually happened in this matter so far, see the timeline.