You are watching a webinar preview. To view the full webinar, log in to your Justia Connect account or sign up for free.

AI in the Workplace: New Frontiers in Employment Litigation

While the rapid development of artificial intelligence tools offers cutting-edge solutions for employment processes, corporate decision-makers face unprecedented legal risk with the adoption of AI technology. The plaintiffs’ bar continues to innovate novel litigation theories while courts and lawmakers weave a patchwork quilt of developing caselaw and legislation. As a result, companies utilizing biometric technology, website advertising technology (“adtech”), profiling and automated decision making (“ADM”) technology, generative AI (“gen AI”), and industry-specific tools should build comprehensive compliance practices to mitigate liabilities.

Join experienced class action defense litigators Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley for a high-level breakdown of AI litigation in the employment context through analysis of key trends, developing legislation, and compliance strategies.

Duration of this webinar: 60 minutes

Originally broadcast: December 15, 2025 11:00 AM PT

Webinar Highlights

This webinar is divided into section summaries, which you can scan for key points and then dive into the sections that interest you the most.

00:00 Introduction

The speakers, Jennifer A. Riley and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., are experts in class action defense and AI-related employment litigation. Jennifer and Gerald will discuss the intersection of AI and employment law, focusing on the rapid evolution of technology compared to the slower pace of legal developments. The speakers emphasize the challenges faced by state legislatures and the federal government in keeping up with AI advancements.

05:47 AI Technologies in Employment Litigation

The speakers discuss the prevalence of biometric technologies and ad tech in employment litigation, particularly in Illinois. They explain the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act and its impact on class action lawsuits related to biometric data. Ad tech is identified as a significant area of privacy-related class actions, with concerns about breaches of privacy through metadata tracking. The discussion highlights the innovative approaches of the plaintiff's bar in using existing statutes to address privacy violations.

10:42 Key Legal Cases and Rulings

The speakers discuss some notable rulings and decisions, such as the Mobley vs. Workday case, which is highlighted as a significant legal development involving AI in employment screening. The court's decision allows claims against Workday to proceed under theories of indirect employer and agency liability. The case underscores the potential for AI tools to disproportionately impact applicants based on race, age, or disability. The discussion also covers the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and its application in cases involving facial recognition technologies.

32:20 State AI Legislation

The discussion shifts to state AI legislation, highlighting the patchwork nature of regulations across the U.S. Illinois is noted for its early regulation of biometrics and AI, with laws like the AI Video Act and HB 3773. New York and Maryland have enacted laws requiring bias audits and consent for certain types of AI use in employment decisions. California's AI Transparency Act and Colorado's AI Act are examples of state-level efforts to regulate AI and protect individuals.

44:51 Federal Government Actions

The Biden administration's executive order offered a comprehensive federal approach to AI regulation, focusing on privacy, consumer protection, worker protection, and civil rights. A more recent executive order under the Trump administration has sparked debate over federal versus state regulation and the potential for litigation over preemption of state laws. The EEOC's strategic focus on AI includes training, outreach, and guidance on algorithmic discrimination and visual disabilities. The DOJ's antitrust enforcement against RealPage highlights concerns about algorithmic collusion in pricing software.

56:13 Building an AI Compliance Toolkit

The webinar concludes with a discussion on building an AI compliance toolkit for legal practitioners. Corporate law departments are increasingly designating AI compliance officers to navigate the complex regulatory landscape. The importance of arbitration agreements and mass arbitration in class action litigation is emphasized.

Please note this AI-generated summary provides a general overview of the webinar but may not capture all details, nuances, or the exact words of the speaker. For complete accuracy, please refer to the original webinar recording.

Speakers

Jennifer A. Riley Vice Chair, Class Action Defense Group
Duane Morris LLP

Jennifer A. Riley, Vice Chair of Duane Morris’ Class Action Defense group, has defended companies faced with significant complex litigation matters for more than two decades. Ms. Riley regularly defends companies facing class actions, collective actions, pattern or practice lawsuits, and other types of representative proceedings, ranging in size from dozens to tens of thousands of claims. Working on the forefront of the developing law in an ever-changing arena, Ms. Riley regularly develops strategies for navigating some of the largest challenges faced by corporate America today and counsels employers confronted with a range of complex theories that span from claims of discrimination or sexual harassment to myriad types of alleged wage & hour and statutory privacy violations. Read More ›

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Chair, Class Action Defense Group
Duane Morris LLP

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Chair of Duane Morris’ Class Action Defense group, has nearly four decades’ experience of practicing law and has defended some of the most significant bet-the-company cases ever filed against corporate America. Mr. Maatman has represented companies, executive teams and boards across the country in class action litigation, ranging in size from thousands to hundreds of thousands of claims by employees. Among his accomplishments, he defended and defeated the largest systemic enforcement action ever brought in the history of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the first Attorney General prosecution of a Wall Street company for workplace discrimination and harassment, and the largest wage & hour class and collective actions ever brought in Florida and New York. Read More ›

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Credits

*CLE credit is only available to Justia Connect Pros. Not a Pro? Upgrade today>>

California CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: June 30, 2026

New Jersey CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.20 General

Earn Credit Until: October 23, 2026

North Carolina CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: February 28, 2026

Texas CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: November 30, 2026

This presentation is approved for one hour of General CLE credit in California, and North Carolina. This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 1.20 hours of total CLE credit. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.00 credit hours.

Justia only reports attendance in jurisdictions in which a particular Justia CLE Webinar is officially accredited. Lawyers may need to self-submit their certificates for CLE credit in jurisdictions not listed above.

Note that CLE credit, including partial credit, cannot be earned outside of the relevant accreditation period. To earn credit for a course, a lawyer must watch the entire course within the relevant accreditation period. Lawyers who have viewed a presentation multiple times may not be able to claim credit in their jurisdiction more than once. Justia reserves the right, at its discretion, to grant an attendee partial or no credit, in accordance with viewing duration and other methods of verifying course completion.

At this time, Justia only offers CLE courses officially accredited in certain states. Lawyers may generate a generic attendance certificate to self-submit credit in their own jurisdiction, but Justia does not guarantee that lawyers will receive their desired CLE credit through the self-submission or reciprocity process.

Looking for CLE credit? Visit CLE Dashboard