Coverage scope
- Verified regulatory records
- Source-backed editorial coverage
- Relevant jurisdictions and primary materials
CURRENT COVERAGE
12 records · 5 articles
Relevant jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington.
REGULATORY RECORDS
Employment Regulations Regarding Automated-Decision Systems
California regulations clarify how the Fair Employment and Housing Act applies when employers and other covered entities use automated-decision systems in employment decisions.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Act
Colorado repealed and reenacted its automated-decision framework. Beginning January 1, 2027, the law governs covered automated decision-making technology used to materially influence consequential decisions, including employment decisions.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Illinois Human Rights Act — Use of Artificial Intelligence in Employment
Illinois amended its Human Rights Act to address employer use of artificial intelligence across recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, and other employment terms.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →New York City Local Law 144 — Automated Employment Decision Tools
New York City regulates employer and employment-agency use of certain automated employment decision tools used to screen candidates for employment or employees for promotion in the city.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →New York City Automated Employment Decision Tools Implementing Rule
NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection rules implement Local Law 144 and define operational details for bias audits, public summaries, and notices involving covered automated employment decision tools.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →California SB 7 — Employment: Automated Decision Systems
SB 7 proposed notice, access, correction, appeal, and human-oversight requirements for employer use of automated decision systems. The Governor vetoed the bill on October 13, 2025; it did not become law.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →New York Public-Sector Automated Employment Decision-Making Framework
New York requires state agencies using covered automated employment decision-making tools to publish specified information. A 2026 chapter amendment added a disclosure provision for defined local public entities and extended related protections for public employees.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →New York Boundaries on Technology Act
The BOT Act proposes impact assessments, notice, restrictions on electronic monitoring and automated employment decision tools, data-access rights, and meaningful human oversight. The official Senate record currently lists S 10147 as active in the Senate Labor Committee.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Massachusetts Attorney General Advisory — Existing Laws and Artificial Intelligence
The Massachusetts Attorney General advises that existing state consumer-protection, anti-discrimination, and data-security laws apply to developers, suppliers, and users of artificial intelligence, including employment uses covered by state anti-discrimination law.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →New Jersey Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination
New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights explains that the Law Against Discrimination applies when automated decision systems or other algorithmic tools cause unlawful discrimination, including in employment advertising, screening, hiring, evaluation, promotion, discipline, and termination.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Vermont H.340 — Automated Decision Systems
H.340 proposes a broad framework for developers and deployers of automated decision systems used for consequential decisions, including employment decisions. The official status page lists the bill in the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development and shows no enacted act.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Washington HB 1672 — Technology Used by Employers in the Workplace
HB 1672 proposes restrictions and procedural protections for employer electronic monitoring and automated decision systems. After a substitute received a do-pass recommendation, the bill was referred to House Appropriations and retained in that status for the 2026 session.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →LATEST COVERAGE
CA · CO · IL · MD · MA · NJ · NY · VT · WA
State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance
The workplace-AI rulebook is not one category of law. It is a mix of operative statutes and regulations, a future-effective Colorado framework, city-level requirements, pending bills, and agency interpretations of existing law.
CA
California’s automated-employment rules bring workplace AI into sharper focus
The effective regulations connect automated decision systems to existing civil-rights duties and employment-record retention—not a new standalone AI statute.
NY · new-york-city
New York City Local Law 144: the dates, tools, and duties that matter
The ordinance, implementing rules, and enforcement launch have different dates. A reliable compliance summary keeps them separate.
IL
Illinois AI employment amendments are now effective
The Human Rights Act now expressly addresses AI used in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, and other employment activity.
CO
Colorado resets its automated-decision framework for 2027
SB 26-189 creates documentation, notice, data-access, correction, and human-review duties for covered consequential decisions, including employment decisions.