From resume screening bots to AI tools that assess facial expressions in interviews, artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how employers make decisions about candidates and employees. Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision systems (ADS) are reshaping the entire employment lifecycle, from the moment a job posting goes live to the day of separation.
Employers are increasingly relying on AI to streamline recruiting and hiring, while ADS are also being used to evaluate employees’ performance and inform separation decisions. While these tools promise efficiency and consistency, their growing influence in employment decisions raises important legal questions and concerns. In response, several jurisdictions have begun implementing guidance and legislation aimed at addressing algorithmic discrimination in the use of AI in employment.
The Promise
AI is transforming recruitment by promising to make hiring faster, more efficient, and potentially less biased. By automating tasks like resume screening, AI can quickly sort through a large volume of applications to identify candidates who meet the minimum qualifications. Another benefit of AI is the ability to apply consistent criteria across all candidates, thus, reducing human preferences and unconscious bias in hiring decisions.
When implemented properly, AI can also help expand access to a more diverse talent pool. For example, algorithms can be designed to focus on qualifications and skills rather than demographic characteristics – enabling employers to uncover candidates they might have otherwise overlooked.
The Pitfalls
Despite its promises, AI in hiring also raises concerns about fairness and discrimination. Rather than eliminating bias, AI tools can inadvertently amplify it. This is known as “algorithmic bias” and occurs when AI tools favor or disfavor candidates based on race, gender, or socioeconomic background, producing discriminatory outcomes. The bias does not come from the algorithm itself, but from the data it is trained on. If the historical hiring data used to train the AI contains patterns of favoritism, such as preferences for certain schools or a preference for a specific gender in a particular field, those patterns can be replicated and even worsen by AI. Without human oversight, AI may perpetuate or exacerbate disparities, often leading to disparate impacts.
The Pushback
As AI tools become more common in employment decisions, some state and local governmental authorities are beginning to respond to rising concerns about algorithmic discrimination. Several jurisdictions, including Illinois, Colorado, California, and New York City have introduced or passed laws requiring employers to disclose their use of automated hiring systems and, in some cases, conduct regular bias audits to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
In others, such as Delaware, authorities have taken a more proactive approach by establishing an entire regulatory body, or an “Artificial Intelligence Commission,” to advise on safe and ethical AI use. Similarly, the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights recently issued guidance on the responsible use of AI in employment decisions. These growing efforts reflect a push for greater transparency and accountability in how AI is used in the workplace.
The Fix
To harness the benefits of AI while minimizing harm, employers must take proactive steps to safeguard against algorithmic bias. One key measure is conducting regular bias audits to assess whether an algorithm produces disparate outcomes for certain groups. Transparency is also essential. Employers should clearly disclose when and how AI is used in employment decisions. Another crucial measure is maintaining human oversight. AI should assist, not replace human judgment. In that regard, decision makers must be trained to understand how these tools work and when to question their results. Finally, using diverse and comprehensive training data can help reduce the risk of reinforcing historical patterns of bias.
The Bottom Line
AI has the potential to revolutionize employment decisions and processes, but without careful design, implementation, and oversight, it can introduce new risks and create additional challenges. Employers must balance innovation and responsibility, ensuring that AI-driven employment decisions remain transparent, equitable, and aligned with evolving legal standards. The members of the KMK Labor and Employment Practice Group are here to help employers to avoid the pitfalls of using AI when making employment decisions.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Alison practices in the firm’s Labor & Employment Group, where she assists clients in all stages of workplace disputes. Alison has extensive experience counseling clients regarding hiring and firing issues, disciplinary ...
- Associate
Mianda Bashala is an associate in the firm’s Labor & Employment Group where she helps clients meet their business objectives and minimize liability through the effective application of labor and employment laws. Her practice ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Wage & Hour
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- Artificial Intelligence
- EEOC
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Department of Labor
- Coronavirus
- NLRB
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Title VII
- Harassment
- Compliance
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Supreme Court
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Diversity
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Arbitration
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Federal Trade Commission
- FMLA
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Social Media
- Medical Marijuana
- Employer Policies
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- Whistleblower
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA
- More on Equal Opportunity: Executive Order Seeks to End Disparate Impact Liability to promote Equal Opportunity
- PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis