3 Key Takeaways
- AI hiring tools are widespread — and the same anti-discrimination laws that govern human decisions apply to algorithmic ones.
- New York City employers must conduct annual bias audits on AI screening tools and notify candidates before using them.
- You may never know an AI screened you out — but if there's a pattern of discriminatory impact, there may be a claim worth exploring.
Artificial Intelligence can be tricky in the workplace
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the way many businesses operate, and the realm of employment decisions is no exception. Before a human ever sees your resume, an algorithm may have already eliminated you. AI tools now screen, score, and filter job candidates at scale — and when those tools are built on biased data, they can discriminate just as effectively as any person. Here’s what the law says about it.
The Same Laws Apply: Human or Machine
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) all apply fully to AI-driven hiring decisions. If an algorithmic tool disproportionately screens out people based on race, sex, disability, or age, that’s a potential legal violation — even if the tool was built by an outside vendor. A 2024 federal court allowed discrimination claims to proceed directly against an HR tech company, finding the vendor could be treated as the employer’s agent when performing screening functions.
Think of it like this: If your school hired a robot helper to grade homework, and the robot graded unfairly, the school couldn’t just say, “Well, the robot did it.” The robot’s maker would also be responsible because they helped do the job.
That’s what the court said about AI hiring tools — the vendor isn’t just selling software; it’s acting like part of the hiring staff. So it must follow the same rules humans follow.
One important shift to note: The Trump administration revoked prior federal AI fairness guidance in early 2025 and the EEOC pulled some of its published technical assistance on the topic. The underlying laws remain fully in force, but federal enforcement priorities in this area have changed.
New York City has its own Rules
Local Law 144 requires NYC employers using automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) to have those tools audited for bias annually by an independent auditor, post the results publicly, and notify candidates at least 10 business days before use. They must also explain how to request an alternative process if one is available. Note: the law covers race, ethnicity, and sex, but not age or disability.
What You Can Do
These cases are hard to bring because most people never know an AI tool was involved. Courts have dismissed claims built entirely on speculation. But if there’s a pattern — a demographic group being systematically screened out — and you can point to something specific, it may be worth pursuing. Deadlines apply, so acting quickly matters. The EEOC complaint process is one option; a civil claim is another.
If you are unsure you should seek counsel
If you have questions about if any of the above applies to you and/or your situation, never just sit back and do nothing. It is always better to reach out to our team at VKV to see if there is something you can do to make things right. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers resources to learn more about artificial intelligence in the workplace.
