Key topic

Employment

Automated decision-making at work, from hiring to monitoring and termination.

Analysis

Part one: When the rule is not written down

Four records suggest that as a hiring mechanism becomes less legible, a plaintiff may reach filing without the rule, the model, or the group-level evidence needed to test it. None establishes that opacity caused the gap, or that discovery will close it.

August 31, 2026

Read more

Analysis

Part two: When the rule is written down and nobody looks

One city requires an automated hiring tool to be audited by an independent auditor and a summary of the result published. The official record through June 2025, which its auditors did not vouch for as complete, shows two complaints, no civil penalty, no notice of violation, and no proceeding at the city tribunal.

August 31, 2026

Read more

Records on this topic

N.D. Cal. (Judge Rita F. Lin) · No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL

Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

A federal collective action testing whether an AI screening vendor can be liable as an agent of employers under Title VII, the ADEA, and disability law. A nationwide ADEA collective was preliminarily certified for notice purposes on May 16, 2025, and the court ordered the acquired HiredScore tool included.

Preliminarily certified nationwide ADEA collective for notice purposes; docket open and active with filings through August 14, 2026 · Verified August 27, 2026

E.D.N.Y. (Judge Pamela K. Chen) · No. 1:22-cv-02565-PKC-PK

EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc.

An age discrimination suit resolved by consent decree over tutor application software programmed to reject applicants above fixed ages. Widely described as the first AI hiring discrimination settlement, though the agency never called it that and the mechanism was a hard-coded rule rather than a learned model.

Filed May 5, 2022; amended August 3, 2022. Consent decree so-ordered September 8, 2023. The filed proposed decree at ECF 24-1 runs five years from the effective date or three years from any resumption of United States tutor hiring, whichever is later; the agency's release confirms monitoring for at least five years, or longer if hiring resumes. The decree terms described here follow the filed proposed decree and the EEOC's account. · Verified August 11, 2026

E.D. Mich. (Judge Terrence G. Berg) · No. 2:25-cv-12403

Harper v. Sirius XM Radio, LLC

A pleaded class action alleging that an applicant tracking system screened African-American applicants out through variables correlated with race. The defendant denies using automated screening at all, making this a test of how a disparate-impact claim is proved when no discriminatory rule can be pointed to.

Filed August 4, 2025; answer filed January 6, 2026. A motion for judgment filed the same day was briefed through a reply on March 12, 2026 and remains pending, and no class certification motion has been filed. · Verified August 21, 2026Unverified

New York City · binding law

NYC Local Law 144 of 2021

New York City's automated employment decision tool law. It requires an annual independent bias audit, publication of the audit summary, and advance candidate notice. The only official measurement of its enforcement records two complaints and no penalties.

N.Y.C. Admin. Code 20-870 to 20-874; rules at 6 RCNY 5-300 to 5-304 · Verified August 21, 2026