Coverage scope
- Screening, hiring and assessment
- Evaluation, discipline and termination
- Notice and explanation requirements
- Distinct statutory and regulatory definitions
CURRENT COVERAGE
22 records · 12 articles
Relevant jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut.
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: California Enacts New Workplace AI Rules: What SB 947 and AB 1883 Require →CCPA Risk Assessment and Automated Decisionmaking Technology Regulations
Final CCPA regulations establish risk-assessment requirements for specified high-risk processing beginning in 2026 and notice, access, opt-out, and appeal provisions for covered ADMT used in significant decisions beginning January 1, 2027.
Related coverage: California Enacts New Workplace AI Rules: What SB 947 and AB 1883 Require →California SB 947 — Employment: Automated Decision Systems
SB 947 limits employer reliance on automated decision systems in employee discipline and termination and adds human-corroboration, postuse-notice, and employee-data-description requirements when reliance is primary.
Related coverage: California SB 947: What Does Human Review Actually Require Before AI-Driven Discipline or Termination? →Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Act
Colorado repealed and reenacted its automated-decision framework. The replacement law applies to consequential decisions made on or after January 1, 2027, including covered employment decisions; the October 6, 2026 interim draft revises the August 11 proposed implementing rules and is not final.
Related coverage: If a staffing firm uses AI to screen applicants, who is responsible under Colorado’s proposed rules? →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: AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring? →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: AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring? →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: AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring? →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: California AI Hiring Compliance in 2026: How FEHA and CCPA Automated Decision Rules Fit Together →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: AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring? →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: AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring? →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 →Connecticut Public Act 26-15 — 2026 Employment Provisions
Public Act 26-15 amends Connecticut employment-discrimination law to address automated employment-related decision technology and adds an AI-related disclosure to Labor Department notices that an employer already submits under the federal WARN Act.
Related coverage: Connecticut’s AI Employment Law Is Now Partly in Effect: What Employers Need to Know →Connecticut Public Act 26-15 — Automated Employment Decision Duties
Sections 7–12 of Public Act 26-15 establish definitions, developer-information duties, interaction disclosures, and pre-decision notices for defined automated employment-related decision technology. Although these sections have an October 1, 2026 effective clause, the operative developer and deployer duties apply to qualifying deployments on or after October 1, 2027.
Related coverage: Connecticut’s AI Employment Law Is Now Partly in Effect: What Employers Need to Know →Connecticut Attorney General Guidance on Existing Laws and Artificial Intelligence
The Connecticut Attorney General's February 2026 memorandum explains that existing civil-rights, privacy, consumer-protection, data-security, and antitrust laws may apply to AI, including AI used in hiring and employment.
Related coverage: Connecticut’s AI Employment Law Is Now Partly in Effect: What Employers Need to Know →Connecticut SB 435 — Automated Decision Systems Protections for Employees
SB 435 proposed a broader employment automated-decision framework, including explanations, data correction, human review, bias audits, recordkeeping, collective-bargaining provisions, and a civil action. The official history ends with an April 20, 2026 favorable report and Senate calendar placement; the regular session adjourned May 6 without enactment.
Related coverage: Connecticut’s AI Employment Law Is Now Partly in Effect: What Employers Need to Know →Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act
HB 149 establishes a broad statewide AI governance framework. Its employment relevance is limited but real: the chapter-wide intentional-discrimination prohibition is written to apply to a person developing or deploying AI, while consumer-specific disclosures do not cover individuals acting in an employment context.
Texas SB 1964 — Public-Sector AI Governance
SB 1964 requires public-sector AI inventories, risk and governance standards, impact assessments for heightened-scrutiny systems, training, and related oversight for covered governmental entities.
Texas HB 5118 — Automated Employment Decision Tool Study
The House committee substitute for HB 5118 would have directed the Texas Workforce Commission, with the Department of Information Resources, to study employer and state-agency use of AI systems and automated employment decision tools in hiring. The bill did not pass the House and was not enacted.
Texas SB 2473 — State-Agency Automated Hiring Tools
SB 2473 proposed notice, tool-use descriptions, and bias-mitigation duties when Texas state agencies used automated employment decision tools to assess applicants. It was referred to Senate Business & Commerce and received no further recorded action.
LATEST COVERAGE
CA
California SB 947: What Does Human Review Actually Require Before AI-Driven Discipline or Termination?
The enacted law requires corroboration when an employer primarily relies on an automated output. It leaves the threshold for primary reliance, and several details of the review, unresolved.
CO
If a staffing firm uses AI to screen applicants, who is responsible under Colorado’s proposed rules?
A new staffing example puts Deployer duties on the covered employer that commissions an automated shortlist and uses it to choose whom to hire. Other agency decisions still require their own analysis.
CT
Connecticut’s AI Employment Law Is Now Partly in Effect: What Employers Need to Know
Connecticut’s discrimination and AI-layoff disclosure provisions took effect October 1, 2026. Its narrower automated-employment notice regime does not begin until October 1, 2027.
CA
California Enacts New Workplace AI Rules: What SB 947 and AB 1883 Require
California's new workplace-AI laws add human-review safeguards for certain automated discipline and termination decisions and restrict AI-enabled emotional-state inference and neural-data collection.
CA
California AI Hiring Compliance in 2026: How FEHA and CCPA Automated Decision Rules Fit Together
California employers must separate two overlapping systems: FEHA rules that already govern discriminatory use of automated employment tools, and final CCPA regulations that impose current risk-assessment duties before ADMT notice and individual-rights requirements begin in 2027.
NY · CO · CA · IL · MD · MA · NJ
AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring?
Current law does not impose one universal monitoring model. New York City uses a rolling one-year audit rule; other regimes rely on discrimination law, notices, records, documentation, or human review—and governance programs often go further.
CO
Colorado AI Employment Law: What Employers Need to Know Before 2027
Colorado has enacted a replacement framework for automated decisions, but its core duties apply to decisions made on or after January 1, 2027—and the Attorney General’s implementing rules are still proposed.
CA · CO · CT · 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, future-effective frameworks, 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.