On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff Arshon Harper (“Harper”) filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan against Sirius XM Radio, LLC (“Sirius”) asserting claims of both unintentional and intentional racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Harper alleges that Sirius’ use of a commercial AI hiring tool that screens and analyzes resumes resulted in racial discrimination against him and other similarly situated African American applicants.
In his complaint, Harper claims that he applied to approximately 150 job positions, for which Sirius rejected him from all but one, despite allegedly meeting or exceeding the job qualifications. Sirius’ use of AI to screen applications, according to Harper, disproportionately rejected him and other African American applicants by relying on certain inputs—such as educational institutions, employment history, and zip codes—as proxies for race. Similarly, Harper alleges that the AI screening tool improperly removed his resume from further consideration due to factors that were unrelated to his qualifications and Sirius’ business needs.
Harper’s lawsuit is not the first to allege an employer’s use of workplace AI constitutes unlawful discrimination. One of the more noteworthy cases is Mobley v. Workday, pending in the Norther District of California. In that case, Mobley alleges that he applied to over 100 jobs using Workday’s applicant‑screening AI platform and was rejected each time, despite meeting the job requirements. Like Harper, Mobley claims that the AI tool improperly generated its decisions to reject his applications based on protected categories. In May 2025, the Court certified a preliminary collective action for Mobley’s age-discrimination claims.
Both Harper and Mobley raise critical legal questions about the role of workplace AI tools, potentially biased and discriminatory AI, and employer liability. These cases serve as reminders to employers that they are subject to liability under existing federal and state anti-discrimination statutes when they rely on AI, in whole or in part, to make decisions impacting recruiting and hiring decisions, or employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, when employers use AI, they should audit, monitor, and validate the fairness of their selection processes to ensure compliance with the law.
Plaintiffs will likely continue filing cases similar to Harper and Mobley as employers adopt and implement workplace AI tools. Also, employers’ obligations will likely expand as an increasing number of states are passing laws regulating the use of AI workplace tools. Accordingly, employers should take the following proactive steps to minimize exposure to legal and reputational risk:
1. Assess Best Use Cases for the Company.
Identify areas where AI can increase efficiency with minimal risk by making core human judgments in the recruiting and hiring process.
2. Conduct Due Diligence on Third-Party AI Vendors.
Vet third party vendors by reviewing how the AI model was trained and obtain the datasets that were used. Ask how the vendor deals with potentially discriminatory decision making by the model.
3. Develop a Comprehensive Plan for AI Implementation.
Ensure that a system for checking AI work product is in place to catch any problematic outputs by the AI model.
4. Conduct Internal Workplace AI Audits and Assessments.
Conduct regular audits of all workplace AI to ensure the tools are functioning as intended and are not causing disparities among protected categories.
5. Ensure Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws, Regulations, and Guidance.
Regularly check for updates on the ever-changing legal landscape in the AI space and consult with counsel on best practices to remain compliant with the law.
6. Monitor Outcomes and Review for Bias.
Keep detailed records of AI outputs and conduct statistical analyses to identify potential bias.
7. Establish Safeguards and Opt-Out Alternatives.
Provide prospective employees with a clear notice of the use of AI in the hiring process and allow them the ability to opt-out of the use of AI with respect to their application.
8. Use AI as a Support Tool, Not the Final Decision Maker.
Ensure that a human employee always has the final say in employment decisions like recruiting, hiring, firing, or promotions, and is not solely relying on the decision of an AI tool.
9. Create Company Policies.
Provide policies that clarify for employees when the use of AI tools is appropriate and the best practices when using them.
10. Verify Proper Human Oversight.
Train employees who oversee AI tools on how to check the AI’s outputs and identify potential legal risk from these outputs.
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. attorneys continue to monitor these cases and can assist with preparing company policies and procedures when your business intersects with Artificial Intelligence.
Blog Editors
Authors
Member of the Firm
Associate
Law Clerk - Admission Pending