YAPAY ZEKÂ TEMELLİ KARAR VERME SÜREÇLERİNİN ETİK BAĞLAMDA İNCELENMESİ: MOBLEY-WORKDAY INC. İŞE ALIM AYRIMCILIK DAVASI VAKA ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı yapay zekâ (YZ) aracılığıyla yürütülen insan kaynakları (İK) süreçlerinde karşılaşılabilecek olası etik sorunları Workday Incorporated isimli bir İK şirketinin dahil olduğu dava üzerinden vaka analizi yöntemiyle ele almak ve önerilerde bulunmaktır. Yapay zekâ aracılığıyla yürütülen istihdam uygulamalarında meydana gelebilecek etik ve hukuki tartışmalar açısından merkezi bir önem taşıyan dava, Derek L. Mobley tarafından Workday Incorporated adlı işletmeye açılmıştır. Davacının gerekçeleri; gece geç saatte başvurduğu bir işe tüm şartları sağlamasına rağmen aynı gece çok kısa sürede ret cevabı verildiği, çok kısa sürede verilen ve gerekçesi olmayan ret cevabının insan eli ile yapılmasının mümkün olmadığı ve yapay zekâdaki bilinmeyen bir algoritmanın insanları yaş, dil, ırk, ten rengi gibi sınıflandırdığı kanaati oluştuğu şeklindedir. Olay algoritmik aktörlerin işe alım süreçlerinde kullanılmasının yol açabileceği önemli hukuki sonuçlara güncel ve kapsamlı bir örnek teşkil etmektedir. Analizler sonucunda ise sorunun YZ’nin İK yönetiminden bütünüyle dışlanmasından geçmediği savunulmuştur. Hem YZ’nin işletmelere sunacağı yönetimsel kolaylıklardan feragat etmeyen hem de ipleri tek bir algoritmik modele bırakmayan bir çözüme yönelmek gerekmektedir. Bu doğrultuda çoklu bir denetim dizgesinden yararlanılabileceği, bunların yine algoritmik yapıda olabileceği, böylelikle hem ayrımcılık suçlamasına maruz kalınabilecek olası eğilimlerin erkenden tespit edilerek önüne geçilebileceği hem de YZ’nin bu alanda sağladığı avantajların korunabileceği düşünülmektedir. Ayrıca olası etik sorunların YZ’nin algoritmik yapısına mahsus olmadığı, aynı sorunların insanın sezgisel etik kavrayışına içkin olduğu ve YZ’nin bu davranışlardan etkilenmiş olduğu savunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ
• Faydacılık
• Ödev Etiği
• İş Etiği
• Algoritmik Ayrımcılık

ETHICAL EXAMINATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES: A CASE ANALYSIS OF THE MOBLEY-WORKDAY INC. RECRUITMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE

Öz

The aim of this study is to address potential ethical issues that may arise in human resources (HR) processes conducted through artificial intelligence (AI), using a case analysis method based on a lawsuit involving the HR company Workday Incorporated, and to make recommendations. The lawsuit, which is of central importance in terms of ethical and legal discussions that may arise in employment practices conducted through AI, was filed by Derek L. Mobley against Workday Incorporated. The plaintiff's reasoning was that despite meeting all the requirements for a job he applied for late at night, he received a very quick rejection on the same night; that this very quick and unjustified rejection could not have been done by human hands; and that he believed an unknown algorithm in the AI had classified people based on age, language, race, skin color, etc. The case serves as a current and comprehensive example of the significant legal consequences that can arise from the use of algorithmic actors in recruitment processes. The analysis concludes that the problem does not lie in completely excluding AI from HR management. It is necessary to move towards a solution that neither sacrifices the managerial advantages that AI will offer to businesses, nor leaves the reins to a single algorithmic model. In this regard, it is thought that a multi-faceted control system could be utilized, which could also be algorithmic in nature. This would allow for the early detection and prevention of potential tendencies that could lead to accusations of discrimination, while also preserving the advantages provided by AI in this area. Furthermore, it is argued that potential ethical problems are not unique to the algorithmic structure of AI, but are inherent in human intuitive ethical understanding, and that AI may have been influenced by these behaviors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence
• Utilitarianism
• Duty Ethics
• Business Ethics
• Algorithmic Discrimination

Kaynakça

1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (1990). U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/ Son Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2026.
2. Armstrong, T. (2025). Bombshell lawsuit says Workday is discriminating against over-40s. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/article-14743483/employment-giant-workday-sued-discriminating-feature-recruitment-algorithm.html. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
3. Asare, J. G. (2025). What The Workday Lawsuit Reveals About AI Bias - And How To Prevent It. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2025/06/23/what-the-workday-lawsuit-reveals-abou t-ai-bias-and -how-to-prevent-it/. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
4. Blanco J. S. (2025). Workday AI lawsuit receives the greenlight to proceed as a collective action. Inside Tech Law. https://www.insidetechlaw.com/blog/2025/06/workday-ai-lawsuit-receives-the-greenlight-to-proceed-as-a-class-action. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
5. Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573-1576.
6. Booth, A. R. (2008). Deontology in ethics and epistemology. Metaphilosophy, 39(4‐5), 530-545.
7. Bory, P., Natale, S. & Katzenbach, C. (2025). Strong and weak AI narratives: an analytical framework. AI & Society, 40(4), 2107-2117.
8. Calderon, V. (2024). Unintentional algorithmic discrimination: How artificial intelligence undermines disparate impact jurisprudence. Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 24, 28.

9. Christ, G. (2025). Judge allows Workday AI bias lawsuit to proceed as collective action. HRDIVE. https://www.hrdive.com/news/workday-ai-bias-lawsuit-class-collective-action/748518/. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
10. Dobkin, R. (2025). Lawsuit claiming discrimination by the Workday HR program could have huge impacts on how AI is used in hiring. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ americas/collective-action-lawsuit-workday-ai-hiring-b2756914.html. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
11. Eightfold.ai, (2024, December 13). HR.com’s Future of AI and recruitment technologies 2024-25. Eightfold. https://eightfold.ai/wp-content/uploads/hr_future_of_ai_and_recruitment_technologie s_report-1.pdf. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
12. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2024). What is the EEOC’s role in AI? https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/20240429_What%20is%20the%20EEOCs% 20role%20in%20AI.pdf. Son Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2026.
13. Grzybowski, A., Pawlikowska–Lagod, K. & Lambert, W. C. (2024). A history of artificial intelligence. Clinics in dermatology, 42(3), 221-229.
14. Gustafson, A. B. (2021). Normative ethics. In Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. Springer, Cham. Haenlein, M. & Kaplan, A. (2019). A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California management review, 61(4), 5-14.
15. Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1), 19-42.
16. Hilliard, A., Gulley, A., Koshiyama, A. & Kazim, E. (2024). Bias audit laws: How effective are they at preventing bias in automated employment decision tools?. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 1-17.
17. Humber, N. J. (2023). A home for digital equity: Algorithmic redlining and property technology. Cal. L. Rev., 111, 1421.
18. Kagan, S. (2018). Normative ethics. England: Routledge
19. Keeling, G. (2020). Why trolley problems matter for the ethics of automated vehicles. Sci Eng Ethics, 26, 293-307.
20. Lada, J., Neal, B., Chapman, D. & Askinazi, L. (2025). Federal Court Allows Collective Action Lawsuit Over Alleged AI Hiring Bias. Holland & Knigth. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications /2025/05/federal-court-allows-collective-action-lawsuit-over-alleged. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
21. Liu, H. W., Lin, C. F. & Chen, Y. J. (2019). Beyond State v Loomis: Artificial intelligence, government algorithmization and accountability. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(2), 122-141.
22. Madanchian, M. & Taherdoost, H. (2025). Ethical theories, governance models, and strategic frameworks for responsible AI adoption and organizational success. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1619029.
23. Mehta, A. (2025). An evaluation of the impact of artificial intelligence integration on job displacement and efficiency in human resource management. International Journal Of Management, Public Policy and Research, 4(2), 21-34.
24. Moriarty, J. (2019). Business ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/ethics-business. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
25. Njie, B. & Asimiran, S. (2014). Case study as a choice in qualitative methodology. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 4(3), 35-40.
26. Oxford Reference. (2025, December 7). https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/ authority.2011 0803095759319. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
27. Park, A. L. (2019). Injustice ex machina: Predictive algorithms in criminal sentencing. UCLA Law Review, 19.
28. Roby, B. (2018). Virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism. University of Mary Washington Student Research Submissions, 292.
29. Rocha, J. L. (2024). AI in the workplace: The dangers of generative AI in employment decisions. Columbia Undergraduate Law Review. https://www.culawreview.org/journal/ai-in-the-workplace-the-dangers-of-generative-ai-in-employment-decisions. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
30. Stahl, B. C. (2021). Concepts of ethics and their application to AI. In artificial intelligence for a better future: An ecosystem perspective on the ethics of AI and emerging digital Technologies. 19-33. Springer International Publishing.
31. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. CA: SAGE Publications.
32. United States Code. (n.d.). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2 – Unlawful employment practices. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2. Son Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2026.
33. United States Code. (n.d.). 29 U.S.C. § 623 – Prohibition of age discrimination. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/623. Son Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2026.
34. US Courts (2023). Derek L. Mobley v Workday Inc., Class Action Complaint, Case 3:23-cv-00770-TSH, 02/21/23, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand. 408645.1.0 .pdf. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
35. US Courts (2024). Derek L. Mobley v Workday Inc., First Amended Class Action Complaint, Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL,02/20/24. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov. uscourts.cand.408645.47.0.pdf. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
36. US Courts (2025). Derek L. Mobley v Workday Inc., Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, Case 3:23-cv-00770-RF, 05/16/25, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00770/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00770-1.pdf. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
37. Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2005). Why stakeholder and stockholder theories are not necessarily contradictory: A Knightian insight. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(3), 249-262.
38. Wallace, J. (2025). Unmasking the algorithm: Addressing bias and accountability in AI-driven employment practices. University of the District of Columbia Law Review, 28(1), 18.
39. Weber, L. (2025). Millions of résumés never make it past the bots. One man is trying to find out why. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/ai-resume-screening-hiring-676a4701. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
40. Wiessner, D. (2024). Workday must face novel bias lawsuit over AI screening software. Routers. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/workday-must-face-novel-bias-lawsuit-over-ai-screening-software-2024-07-15/. Son Erişim Tarihi: 19.12.2025.
41. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.