Latest news with #ADEA
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge allows Workday AI bias lawsuit to proceed as collective action
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Workday Inc. will have to face a collective-action lawsuit alleging that the company's artificial intelligence-based applicant recommendation system discriminated against workers age 40 and older (Mobley v. Workday, Inc.), a federal judge ruled Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Rita Lin granted the applicant's request for preliminary certification of a collective action on the age discrimination claim because applicants 'are alike in the central way that matters: they were allegedly required to compete on unequal footing due to Workday's discriminatory AI recommendations,' according to the order. The applicant and four opt-in plaintiffs said they received hundreds of quick rejections without interviews for jobs via Workday, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Workday has said it could be difficult to identify members of the collective because of the potential number of applicants affected, but the judge said 'those challenges do not appear insurmountable.' 'If the collective is in the 'hundreds of millions' of people, as Workday speculates, that is because Workday has been plausibly accused of discriminating against a broad swath of applicants. Allegedly widespread discrimination is not a basis for denying notice,' Lin ruled. The class will include individuals aged 40 and over who were denied employment recommendations for job opportunities through Workday's job application platform from Sept. 24, 2020, through 'the present,' the court said. A Workday spokesperson said the company continues to believe the case is without merit. 'This is a preliminary ruling at an early stage of this case, and before the facts have been established. We're confident that once those facts are presented to the court, the plaintiff's claims will be dismissed,' the spokesperson said in an emailed statement to HR Dive. To prove disparate impact under the ADEA, plaintiffs need to show a significant disparate impact on a protected class or group; identify the employment practices at issue; and demonstrate a causal relationship between those practices and the disparate impact, the court said. Workday argued that the applicant should be held to a significantly higher burden of proof at the first stage of the 'similarly situated' analysis because discovery has already started. 'In essence, Workday proposes a sliding scale, in which the more discovery has occurred, the more evidence plaintiff should have to provide,' per the order. The judge declined to apply a sliding scale standard, 'which is contrary to the procedure used by virtually all district courts in this circuit.' That type of approach 'would be impossible to apply with consistency, would encourage gamesmanship' and is contrary to precedent, the judge said. Workday also presented several arguments for why the plaintiff's lawsuit should not be granted class-action status. The company said it doesn't offer employment recommendations, so even the plaintiff shouldn't be part of the collective; it said the policy in question is not uniformly applied to all applicants; and Workday said the variation in the proposed class members' qualifications for the jobs, the number of jobs applied to and the rejection rate mean the applicants could not be similarly situated. The court said that Workday's own website and the company's responses during discovery run contrary to its claim that it doesn't recommend applicants. The court noted that the proposed class only includes individuals whose applications were subject to Workday's AI; and the court said the plaintiff 'is not required to prove that each member of the proposed collective is identically situated … his burden is to identify legal or factual similarities that are material to the resolution of the case.' Judge Lin ordered Workday and the plaintiffs to work together to identify the best way to notify potential class members. Correction: In a previous version of this article, the date range of the applicants who could be included in the class was misstated. The class will include individuals aged 40 and over who were denied employment recommendations for job opportunities through Workday's job application platform from Sept. 24, 2020, through 'the present." Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Wire
13-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Top Dental School Receives ADEA Grant to Use Pearl's AI Platform to Improve Radiologic Education and Clinical Performance for High-Quality, Consistent Patient Care
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pearl, the global leader in dental AI solutions, today announced that the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Dentistry has been awarded a grant from the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) to integrate Pearl Calibrate, the first AI-powered clinical calibration tool, into its educational and research programs. The grant-powered collaboration will enable faculty, residents, and students to incorporate advanced AI technology into their curriculum and in preparation for clinical work. Insights garnered from the implementation are expected later this year. The integration of Calibrate into dental training infrastructure marks a pivotal moment in dental education, highlighting a collective commitment to adopting innovative solutions that enhance both teaching and patient care. 'It is terrific to see UCLA taking a leading role in the AI-driven advancement of dental education,' said Ophir Tanz, founder and CEO of Pearl. 'The ADEA grant empowers faculty and students with a tool designed specifically to foster consistency and higher standards in radiologic diagnosis –– and underscores AI's increasingly vital influence on dentistry today. In collaboration with UCLA, we are making significant strides toward a dental future where AI and human talent blend to elevate care and foster better outcomes for patients.' 'At UCLA, we are committed to embracing innovation that safely and securely advances our field,' said Dr. Paul H. Krebsbach, Dean of the UCLA School of Dentistry. 'Implementing this new technology aligns with our strategic imperative to leverage best-in-class digital architecture and to prepare our students to lead in the evolving landscape of dental care. I commend Dr. Sanjay Mallya, chair of our Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, for leading this initiative.' Calibrate is a multi-purpose tool that helps a broad range of users hone their dental x-ray evaluation skills and overcome subjectivity endemic to diagnostic radiology. Calibrate helps ensure consistency across clinical professionals operating within dental industry organizations including universities, single- and multi-site clinics, radiology centers, and insurance companies. Offering an extensive internal image library, as well as the ability to upload image datasets, Calibrate allows administrators to prescribe interpretive standards and customize benchmarks tailored to their organizations' unique clinical specifications. About Pearl Pearl is an AI-driven company committed to enhancing patient care in dentistry. Founded in 2019 by a team with decades of experience developing successful, enterprise-grade computer vision solutions, Pearl introduced the first-ever FDA-cleared AI capable of reading and instantly identifying diseases in dental x-rays. With regulatory clearance in 120 countries, Pearl's AI assists dentists in making precise clinical decisions and effectively communicating with patients, thereby transforming the dental care experience worldwide. As dentistry's global AI leader, Pearl is committed to the ongoing innovation of robust, accessible AI tools that improve patient health outcomes and build greater trust in dental medicine. To request a demo, please visit
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Movie theater chain settles lawsuit alleging it halted workers' health insurance at age 65
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A movie theater chain will pay $250,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that alleged the company forced a longtime manager to retire because he was 73, the agency said April 10 (EEOC v. Allen Theatres). The company allegedly did not allow the manager of 31 years to return to work when the theaters reopened in March 2021 after COVID-19-related closures. Allen Theatres, Inc., which operates theaters in New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, also allegedly refused to pay workers' health insurance when they turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare, EEOC said. The discriminatory pay policy also led to the company paying lower compensation to workers 65 and older, per EEOC. The company allegedly violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age-related discrimination in the hiring, firing, and compensation of employees 40 years old or older. Under the two-year consent decree, Allen Theatres will be required to offer health insurance to any employee who is 65 or older and not currently enrolled, to revise its policies to prohibit age discrimination and to offer 'robust' investigative and training procedures related to age discrimination, EEOC said. 'Employers must train their staff to recognize discriminatory treatment of employees and protect employees by providing equal employee benefits regardless of their age,' Melinda Caraballo, district director of EEOC's Phoenix district office, said in a statement. The settlement requires the company to provide one hour annually of Equal Employment Opportunity training to all nonmanagerial employees; three hours annually of training on the ADEA and other anti-discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC to all managerial and supervisory employees; and five hours annually of training on the ADEA and other federal anti-discrimination laws to all HR staff. 'It violates federal anti-discrimination law for managers or any corporate officers to force workers over the age of 40 to involuntarily retire because of their age,' Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for EEOC's Phoenix district office, said in a statement. 'Employers should not impose their ideas about when older employees should quit working, especially for those employees who want to work, are qualified to work, and are doing a good job.' EEOC filed the complaint against Allen Theatres Sept. 27, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. At the time, EEOC said the theater company's president testified that his decision to force the worker into retirement was legally allowed because he was 'normal retirement age.' Allen Theatres could not immediately be reached for comment. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is Adeia Inc.'s (NASDAQ:ADEA) 16% ROE Strong Compared To Its Industry?
One of the best investments we can make is in our own knowledge and skill set. With that in mind, this article will work through how we can use Return On Equity (ROE) to better understand a business. To keep the lesson grounded in practicality, we'll use ROE to better understand Adeia Inc. (NASDAQ:ADEA). Return on equity or ROE is a key measure used to assess how efficiently a company's management is utilizing the company's capital. In simpler terms, it measures the profitability of a company in relation to shareholder's equity. We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. The formula for ROE is: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Adeia is: 16% = US$65m ÷ US$397m (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024). The 'return' refers to a company's earnings over the last year. So, this means that for every $1 of its shareholder's investments, the company generates a profit of $0.16. Check out our latest analysis for Adeia By comparing a company's ROE with its industry average, we can get a quick measure of how good it is. Importantly, this is far from a perfect measure, because companies differ significantly within the same industry classification. The image below shows that Adeia has an ROE that is roughly in line with the Software industry average (15%). That isn't amazing, but it is respectable. Although the ROE is similar to the industry, we should still perform further checks to see if the company's ROE is being boosted by high debt levels. If so, this increases its exposure to financial risk. Most companies need money -- from somewhere -- to grow their profits. That cash can come from issuing shares, retained earnings, or debt. In the case of the first and second options, the ROE will reflect this use of cash, for growth. In the latter case, the debt required for growth will boost returns, but will not impact the shareholders' equity. In this manner the use of debt will boost ROE, even though the core economics of the business stay the same. It's worth noting the high use of debt by Adeia, leading to its debt to equity ratio of 1.20. While its ROE is pretty respectable, the amount of debt the company is carrying currently is not ideal. Debt does bring extra risk, so it's only really worthwhile when a company generates some decent returns from it. Return on equity is useful for comparing the quality of different businesses. In our books, the highest quality companies have high return on equity, despite low debt. If two companies have around the same level of debt to equity, and one has a higher ROE, I'd generally prefer the one with higher ROE. But ROE is just one piece of a bigger puzzle, since high quality businesses often trade on high multiples of earnings. Profit growth rates, versus the expectations reflected in the price of the stock, are a particularly important to consider. So you might want to take a peek at this data-rich interactive graph of forecasts for the company. If you would prefer check out another company -- one with potentially superior financials -- then do not miss this free list of interesting companies, that have HIGH return on equity and low debt. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
