What Are My Legal Rights When Employers Use AI in Hiring?

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) has entered human resources, where algorithms create job postings and sort through stacks of job applications. AI hiring tools can help employers make better hiring decisions, but there is always a risk of discrimination or bias.

For prospective employees, AI bias poses an additional risk because no human decision-making is involved. Applicants may never know why their resume got rejected or why they didn’t pass the first round of interviews. “Automated Decision Systems” (ADS) do the approving or rejecting, and there’s a chance no human ever saw your resume.

Some states have already enacted laws to head off new dangers of bias in the hiring process. Employers remain liable for discrimination under existing federal laws if bias occurs, regardless of whether AI made the error. If you’re worried about your job prospects under the new AI hiring tools, keep reading to learn your rights.

AI Hiring Tools

Artificial intelligence (AI) in hiring typically uses algorithms and machine learning to analyze applicant data. These systems are trained on large datasets (such as past hiring decisions, employee performance records, or resume databases) to identify patterns and predict how well a candidate fits the job description.

Employers and recruiters can use AI for resume screening to include or exclude specific job skills, education, or other desired traits. Screening tools can also help headhunters recruiting for high-value positions by searching for particular names or corporations.

AI tools do not do anything that HR professionals and their staff cannot do. AI just does it faster. In theory, AI tools could reduce human bias by focusing solely on job-relevant qualifications. However, AI systems can inherit or amplify bias from their training data, even when protected characteristics aren’t explicitly included as inputs. The quality and objectivity of an AI system depend heavily on the data used to train it.

This has led to some complex legal questions in the field.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

In 2024, Derek Mobley filed a lawsuit against Workday, Inc., an HR software program many employers use to manage job applications and screen candidates. Workday collects resumes, administers screening tests, and manages communication between applicants and employers throughout the hiring process.

Mobley (later joined by four other plaintiffs) alleges that they have applied for hundreds of jobs on Workday and have been rejected for nearly all of them without an interview. 

Mobley’s complaint argues that, given the timing and speed of the rejections (one arrived less than an hour after he sent it; another at 1:30 a.m.), it was likely that no human was looking at them.

The lawsuit alleges that Workday’s algorithmic applicant recommendation system discriminates against job applicants based on protected characteristics like age, race, and disability. 

These details are rarely explicitly stated on someone’s job application. So you might wonder how an algorithm could discriminate based on age or race. But might be surprised at what can be inferred from a resume or job application. 

For example, the education section of Mobley’s resume indicated that he graduated from Morehouse College in 1995. Morehouse is a historically Black college, and his graduation year (along with his employment history) could be used to approximate his age. 

The complaint argues that these details, combined with documented issues of bias in machine learning, can lead to discrimination.

The lawsuit became a class action in 2025 and, as of June 2026, is still in the discovery phase. 

State Laws on AI Use in Hiring

Although there are no federal laws that restrict the use of AI in hiring, a few states have begun protecting workers and job seekers from possible AI violations. These laws allow employers to use AI to screen applicants, subject to a number of restrictions. California, Illinois, and New York all have laws stating that employment agreements cannot contain a provision allowing employers to create or use a digital replica of a worker’s voice or image.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the laws already in place.

California

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects workers whose rights have been violated by any employment decisions. These include those made by automated decision-making technology (ADMT). Claimants do not need proof of intent; they only need proof of discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

S.B. 53, passed in 2025, protects whistleblowers and developers of very large AI systems from retaliation if they report safety concerns while assessing their systems during development. 11 CCR § 7120 makes employers subject to California’s Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) that use ADMT for any employment decisions without human involvement (including hiring, training, or recruiting) must provide pre-use notice, opt-out, and access rights.

Colorado

As of June 30, 2025, employers must comply with high-risk AI system standards. This includes conducting bias audits for all AI systems in employment.

Illinois

Illinois has some of the most comprehensive protection for workers regarding the use of AI as a hiring and recruiting tool. The Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (2019) requires employers to inform applicants if they record video interviews and use AI to analyze them. Employers must comply with existing consent and data retention policies.

The Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) was amended in 2023 to prohibit employers from using AI to recruit, hire, promote, renew employment, or make any other employment decision when the use subjects employees to discrimination or disparate treatment.

Maryland

Since 2020, employers must obtain consent before using AI-based facial recognition technology for hiring purposes.

New York City

The NYC Administrative Code requires the use of bias audits for AI systems used in hiring and in-house promotions.

Texas

As of 2025, employers may not intentionally develop or use an AI system to discriminate against a protected class in violation of federal law.

Federal Regulations

Although there are no federal regulations prohibiting the use of AI for hiring, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) monitors AI and other hiring practices for signs of discrimination and disparate treatment. The EEOC’s amicus brief in Mobley v. Workday explained that platforms and others like them must beware of explicit or implicit bias in their screening algorithms.

Hiring discrimination violates federal laws, no matter how it occurs. AI models only follow previous patterns of acceptance and rejection. Some federal laws that are involved in AI hiring and discrimination practices include:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or national origin
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals based on real or perceived physical or mental disabilities, and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for those with such disabilities
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): Prevents employers from bypassing applicants over the age of 40 in favor of younger (and cheaper) workers, and from denying them promotions

The EEOC handles all claims of discrimination, including new allegations that AI algorithms have created discriminatory results or led to disparate treatment or impact. Anyone who believes they have encountered this outcome should contact an employment law attorney or the EEOC immediately.

When Should You Call a Lawyer?

It can be difficult to know if an AI algorithm rejected you or if you’re just not quite right for the job. Even before AI appeared, keyword searches were doing the same thing for human HR staff, albeit at a slower pace. A handful of state laws require transparency and audits, but you still need reasonable suspicion to compel them to open their files. Here are some tips to help you decide if a person or a circuit board turned you down:

• Your rejection arrived within minutes, or you got a notification at a strange time, like the middle of the night or on weekends
• You could neither get an explanation for your test scores nor access them
• The agency told you the “system” evaluated your performance or status, but you could not find out what your performance was
• You see other complaints about the company or the “system” on social media platforms that have an identifiable pattern in those rejected (age, race, etc.)

If you are suspicious, keep notes about the system, especially if you use the same platform or notice that several companies hire through the same online recruiter. Keep all emails or texts you receive about your application, including mentions of “AI,” “algorithms,” or “automated scoring.”

If you believe there was any bias in the hiring process that caused you to lose the position, consider contacting an employment law attorney in your area. In some states, you may have the ability to file a lawsuit directly against the company for violating your legal rights. In others, you may still have a cause of action for violation of federal or state laws against disparate impact. This is a new legal field, but that doesn’t mean you need to wait for the law to catch up.