Dive Brief:
- Sirius XM was granted summary judgment Sept. 30 in a lawsuit alleging discrimination via artificial intelligence tools against a Black job seeker. The charging party in Harper v. Sirius XM Radio, LLC claimed artificial intelligence was the root of his numerous rejections from open roles at Sirius XM.
- He alleged that the media company’s hiring software, iCIMS, screens and rejects job applicants in a way that “intentionally and disproportionately” discriminates against African American workers. HR Dive reached out to Sirius XM and iCIMS for comment, but neither responded back immediately for comment.
- The lawsuit also alleged a disparate impact claim, but the court said the plaintiff had not shown how the employer’s alleged use of AI could have discriminated against him based on his race. The dismissal sheds some light on how courts may examine bias accusations related to AI-enabled hiring software.
Dive Insight:
The plaintiff in the Sirius XM case applied to about 150 roles between November 2023 and November 2024, including a software engineering role and a technical support specialist position. The charging party did get an interview for an IT desktop support role in late 2023 and allegedly had to field questions about his usage of multiple email addresses for his applications.
Per the court documents, the plaintiff said he used several emails to avoid “suspected algorithmic penalties for repeat applications.”
The plaintiff later filed a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge against Sirius XM in November 2024, similarly stating in his complaint that he felt he was being penalized for his use of different email addresses that he created for the “express purpose of trying to obtain employment.” While EEOC declined to take up the case, it issued a right-to-sue letter and the plaintiff followed up with his federal lawsuit on Aug. 4, 2025.
In order to succeed with a disparate treatment claim, the plaintiff needs to present direct or circumstantial evidence that can clearly indicate discriminatory intent. If there is no “smoking gun,” the court said, then the plaintiff must prove that they are a part of a protected class, that they’re qualified for the job, that they suffered an adverse employment decision or that they were replaced or treated differently by someone outside their protected class.
The plaintiff failed to present both direct and circumstantial evidence, the court said, so it granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case.
The court documents also discuss the idea of artificial intelligence causing disparate impact, along with intentional discrimination. Disparate impact liability has been a hot topic in the world of work, namely because the administration has turned away from its enforcement. In April 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order for agencies, including EEOC, to cease enforcement of disparate impact liability; then, come June 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice deemed EEOC’s disparate impact guidelines unconstitutional.
The case is yet another instance of AI-enabled hiring software being named as a source of potentially unlawful job rejections.
Workday, for example, has been the center of a lawsuit regarding its tool and alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Arguments arose about whether Workday needed to disclose its full customer lists, whether job applicants had grounds to allege disparate impact, and whether Workday had violated federal or state law, or both. Workday couldn’t beat the state discrimination claims, and the case is still ongoing.
