Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEREK MOBLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WORKDAY, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00770-RFL
ORDER RE PROPOSED NOTICE
FORMS
Re: Dkt. No. 180
Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement (Dkt. No. 180) and heard
further argument at the Case Management Conference, the following order is entered:
1. Plaintiffs’ proposed dissemination plan is approved, including the proposed
possible reallocation and retargeting.
a. The notice period shall be limited to 60 days, which will commence on the
first day that the third-party administrator website goes live. In their next
case management statement, the parties shall provide a proposed timeline
for when the notice period will start.
b. Comments will not be disabled, but the profile(s) that post the notices
should not be permitted to comment their own posts.
c. The parties should meet and confer regarding the appearance and content
of the profile(s) that will post the notices, and notify the Court regarding
the plan in their next case management statement.
2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the proposed short form notice
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 186 Filed 10/23/25 Page 1 of 4

2
language, and shall provide updated proposed language in the next case
management statement. To the extent any disputes remain, the parties must
provide a redlines indicating the alternative proposals to the disputed language.
As the Court stated in the case management conference:
a. The notices should not state that the “Court is providing notice,” as this
language may result in confusion. The parties should consider replacing
such language with “the Court has authorized notice” or “the Court is
requiring the sending of this notice.”
b. References to an “applicant class” should not be used, as it is inaccurate.
c. The Court does not find any of the remaining language identified by
Workday at the case management conference to be misleading or
inaccurate.
3. All notices shall direct individuals to the third-party administrator’s website,
which will host the Long Form Notice, the Eligibility Form, and the Consent
Form. This ensures that individuals’ employment application history and other
sensitive information will be maintained in a secure, confidential manner until it
is determined through the matching process, on a preliminary basis, that they fall
within the definition of the collective. Those who meet the preliminary eligibility
criteria, or who contest the opt-in eligibility determination from the matching
process, will have their information provided to the parties. The remainder will
not. Nothing prohibits Plaintiffs’ social media coordinator from discussing the
mechanics of the notice plan with the third-party administrator.
4. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the Long Form Notice proposed by
the Court. If the parties reach agreement on all outstanding issues, they should
file an updated proposed Long Form notice and a redline identifying the agreed-
upon changes in the next case management statement. If disputes remain, the
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 186 Filed 10/23/25 Page 2 of 4

3
parties should instead each provide a redline identifying any further proposed
edits to the proposed Long Form Notice in the next case management statement.
5. Workday is responsible for the entire cost associated with the third-party
administrator’s matching of the employers listed on each opt-in eligibility form
with the list provided by Workday and the associated communication of which
individuals are determined to be on the eligible list, to the extent that cost exceeds
the cost of the same service if a drop-down menu had been used. The costs
associated with the third-party administrator’s services, including the website
hosting services, will otherwise be shared equally by the parties. Workday shall
propose a cost allocation mechanism in the next joint case management statement.
6. Individuals who complete the Eligibility Form are not restricted from contacting
Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Long-Form Notice provides Plaintiffs’ counsel’s contact
information. Plaintiffs may propose a more prominent placement of their contact
information in the Long-Form Notice.
7. Pursuant to Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2018),
the Court should not play a gatekeeping role with respect to an individual’s ability
to opt-in to this action. Therefore, the proposed Long-Form Notice was updated
to better reflect that individuals are not precluded from separately filing a consent
to join form outside of eligibility determination process. At the same time, the
proposed notice process is designed to accurately notify those who are potentially
within the collective definition of their right to opt-in, and it is likely that
individuals who fail to make use of the eligibility process will be dismissed at the
decertification stage because they are ineligible and/or because the parties lack
sufficient information to determine their eligibility. The parties should meet and
confer as to whether the language in the Long Form Notice contains a sufficiently
clear warning that failure to submit to the eligibility process could result in an
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 186 Filed 10/23/25 Page 3 of 4

4
individual’s dismissal at the decertification stage. The Court also remains open to
hearing further proposals on this issue.
8. Because the Consent Form will be publicly filed, the proposed Consent Form
removes unnecessary personal identifying information. However, the parties
should consider whether, upon submission to the third-party administrator, the
Consent Forms should be automatically stamped with an identification number
that is associated with the Eligibility Form, to avoid confusion, and shall make a
proposal in the next case management statement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2025
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 186 Filed 10/23/25 Page 4 of 4