The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Thursday that employers relying on AI recruitment tools are responsible for biased hiring. It’s a warning that, like New York City’s new Automated Hiring Decisions Act, could prompt more widespread adoption of AI audit laws.
In its recommendation, the EEOC said that in the event of employment discrimination, employers could be held liable for the actions of HR software vendors “if they authorize them to act on their behalf.” said.
Federal regulators have never filed lawsuits against HR vendors or employers for AI bias. The law enforced by the government is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex, including pregnancy and sexual orientation. The risk of bias in AI recruitment tools has been noted in studies and public hearings.
The EEOC regularly warns employers about the risks of AI, and has even suggested that some AI vendors are selling “snake oil.” Its latest action outlined steps employers should take to avoid discrimination in employment. The report recommends that employers ask their HR vendors about the risks of discrimination.
Liability issues between employers and vendors remain unclear until a lawsuit is filed over AI bias and a court decides. But for now, the EEOC is focused on urging her HR vendors and employers to equally ensure that their software does not discriminate.
The EEOC didn’t specifically mention AI audits, but “it’s a tacit understanding,” said Nucleus Research analyst Evelyn McMullen.
McMullen believes the EEOC’s guidance could encourage states to follow New York City’s example and enact legislation requiring employers to conduct independent audits to check for bias in AI. The law also requires employers to notify job seekers when these tools are used.
New York City’s 2021 law will be the first in the nation. The legislation was due to start in January but was delayed to July 5 as regulators and vendors battled over the final regulatory wording.
“It’s important to have an independent auditor who specializes in AI bias, as the responsibility lies with the employer,” McMullen said. “Perhaps the first financial fines will go to employers who at least failed to demonstrate that they attempted to address bias in their algorithms.”
Self-audit or independent audit
EEOC Chair Charlotte Burroughs said in a statement: “Employers are encouraged to conduct ongoing self-analysis to determine whether they are using technology in ways that may result in discrimination. ‘ said.
Employers may conduct self-audits or independent audits, said James Paletti, an employment attorney at Littler Mendelsohn PC in Washington.
“If state, local, or other law requires an independent third-party analysis, it must be done,” Paletti said in an email. However, in the absence of such a requirement, it is “best practice” for the employer to do an in-house assessment or audit if it has the ability to do so.
In an analysis immediately following the EEOC’s guidance statement, Paletti wrote, “Both the federal government and state and local governments have indicated their intention to regulate in this area, and employers are advised to monitor developments closely.” rice field.
McMullen believes California will follow in New York City’s footsteps with automated hiring decisions. “Until most of the US is covered and independent audits become commonplace, this will lead to a domino effect,” she said.
