same way you bring any hiring discrimination case: you get eyewitness testimony, you subpoena emails, you do the very squirrelly job of trying to figure out wh

same way you bring any hiring discrimination case: you get eyewitness testimony, you subpoena emails, you do the very squirrelly job of trying to figure out whether there was discriminatory intent, etc. if a heuristic was used that discriminates against people with the first name "rashad", but the operators of the heuristic didn't realize that, you get the company to stop using that heuristic. if they knew that's what was happening, and they were fine with it, because they thought people with the name rashad would probably be black, or muslim, or black muslims, then you penalize that company exactly as you would have if someone sent an email saying "i'm not considering the resumes of people that i think are [black|muslim|whatever protected hiring category]". hiring discrimination regulation is already notoriously hard to enforce. that doesn't mean it's not worth trying, or that it's not worth trying to think about new threats to the goal of non-discriminatory hiring.