AI Hiring Laws in California: What Job Seekers Need To Know

Many employment-related headlines of recent years have revolved around artificial intelligence (AI). It’s been implicated in taking jobs, increasing jobs, improving them, degrading them, and making them both easier and harder to get. The actual truth about AI hiring systems and computer-based assessments is harder to find.

Automated decision systems (ADS) and the use of algorithms in the hiring process have been around longer than the current AI debate. Keyword trackers have been in use since before the internet. Since the late 1980s, with Resumix and applicant tracking systems (ATS), employers have used the latest technology to screen applicants efficiently.

Objections over the use of ADS programs often focus on the lack of human oversight. It increasingly seems to job-seekers that human beings are being left out of the process, making employment discrimination harder to detect. California has clarified that its existing employment-discrimination law applies when employers use automated decision systems in hiring and other workplace decisions.

In this article, we’ll look at the current landscape of AI hiring laws in California. If you believe you’ve already been a victim of illegal AI-based hiring discrimination, consider speaking with a local employment law attorney to assess your specific situation.

California’s AI Hiring Rules

California primarily addresses AI in hiring through its powerful Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The California Civil Rights Council has confirmed that FEHA‘s anti-discrimination protections apply to all automated decision systems (ADS) and AI tools.

This means employers in California:

• Cannot use discriminatory systems: Employers and other covered entities may not use an ADS or selection criteria that discriminates against applicants or employees based on a characteristic protected by FEHA
• May need to provide accommodations: An employer may need to offer reasonable accommodation where an automated assessment or screening process disadvantages an applicant because of a disability, religious practice, or another protected basis
• Cannot use unlawful screening questions or tests: Automated tools cannot be used to ask otherwise illegal hiring questions through games, puzzles, or any other assessment that is likely to elicit disability-related information
• Must comply with recordkeeping requirements: Covered employers and entities must retain certain personnel and employment records (including applications, selection criteria, and ADS data) for four years from the later of the record’s creation or the related personnel action

Some AI-hiring tools may also raise questions under consumer-reporting law. In a 2026 proposed class action lawsuit, job applicants alleged that Eightfold AI created applicant evaluations that qualify as consumer or investigative consumer reports under federal law and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. As of August 2026, litigation is ongoing.

Anti-Bias Testing and AI Hiring

California’s AI-employment rules don’t require every employer to conduct a formal, independent bias audit before using an automated hiring tool. They have the option to show they’ve made an effort to test for and prevent discrimination, which may benefit them in a legal dispute. Under FEHA regulations, a court or agency may consider evidence (or the lack thereof) of anti-bias testing or similar efforts to prevent unlawful discrimination.

Useful reviews can examine whether the system disproportionately screens out applicants based on a characteristic protected by FEHA, such as race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin, or another protected characteristic. Employers may also ask vendors for documentation about:

• How the tool was tested
• What data it uses
• How the vendor addresses identified bias risks

A third-party vendor may also face liability where it qualifies as an employer’s agent or otherwise falls within FEHA’s coverage.

Executive Order N-6-26

California is also studying how artificial intelligence may reshape employment beyond individual hiring decisions. On May 21, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-26, which directs state agencies to examine AI-driven workforce disruption and recommend policies to help workers and businesses.

Executive Order N-6-26 doesn’t create new legal duties for private employers, establish an applicant right to human review, or provide a new individual legal claim for AI-related hiring discrimination. Instead, it directs state agencies to collect information and develop recommendations that could inform future legislation or regulations.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The issue of bias and use of AI in screening resumes is being litigated in Mobley v. Workday, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that Workday’s applicant-screening technology and related hiring products violate anti-discrimination laws, unlawfully screening out disadvantaged applicants based on protected characteristics, including age, race, sex, and disability. The litigation raises the question of when an AI-hiring vendor may be liable as an employer’s agent or under other employment-discrimination theories.

In a June 22, 2026 ruling, the court allowed substantial portions of the plaintiffs’ amended discrimination claims to proceed. As of August 2026, no liability finding, settlement, or final judgment has occurred.

The larger issue is the machine-learning process that generates AI algorithms. AI learns through assessing previous records. If a company has a long history of hiring individuals from certain locations or from certain colleges, the AI will prioritize those locations and colleges, even if no bias is intended. This can cause disparate impact even without discriminatory intent.

Disparate Impact vs. Discriminatory Intent

The California Civil Rights Council recognized that the greater danger with AI tools was not intentional bias, but disparate and possibly unconscious impacts caused by inadequate AI training. For instance, no employer will say “Only hire employees under the age of 30,” but may say “sort resumes by date of college graduation.” Doing so may disproportionately disadvantage older applicants. That result can create age-discrimination risk, particularly if the employer cannot show that the criterion is job-related and legally justified.

“Knockout” questions can also create legal risk. These may be lawful questions designed to eliminate applicants who are not qualified for business reasons. “Will you relocate if required?” is a legitimate question, since moving may be a business necessity. However, an employer can’t ask disability-related questions, including whether an applicant will need a reasonable accommodation, before making a conditional job offer. A knockout question about accommodations could violate anti-discrimination laws.

Upcoming Legislation: The “No Robo Bosses Act”

California’s first “No Robo Bosses Act,” Senate Bill 7, passed the state legislature in 2025, but Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it. In his veto message, Newsom said the bill’s restrictions on workplace AI were overly broad and overlapped in part with protections already available under California employment law.

Lawmakers introduced a follow-up measure, Senate Bill 947, in 2026 under the same name. It passed the California Senate in May 2026 and remains under consideration in the Assembly. SB 947 is primarily a workplace-management bill. Its proposed restrictions focus on employers’ use of ADS in decisions affecting existing workers, particularly discipline, discharge, and deactivation.

If enacted in its current form, SB 947 would limit employers’ use of an ADS in workplace decisions. Among other things, it would:

• Prohibit California employers from relying solely on an automated system for employment decision-making (including decisions to fire, discipline, or deactivate a worker)
• Require human oversight and independent verification when an automated system helps inform a termination or disciplinary decision
• Restrict use of automated systems to predict a worker’s behavior, beliefs, intentions, personality, emotional state, or other personal characteristics
• Restrict systems that infer protected characteristics or use automated analysis to retaliate against workers for exercising legal rights
• Require notice to workers when an automated system was used in certain termination or disciplinary decisions
• Create potential enforcement mechanisms, including Labor Commissioner enforcement and private actions by workers or their representatives

SB 947 addresses the workplace treatment of current workers. It wouldn’t create a general right for job applicants to opt out of AI-based resume screening, or require every employer to disclose every use of AI in hiring. Applicants’ existing protections against discriminatory AI screening instead come principally from the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the AI-related FEHA regulations.

What This Means for California Job-Seekers

It’s difficult to tell whether an employer used an automated system in a hiring decision. California’s FEHA rules prohibit the discriminatory use of those systems. They don’t grant every applicant a general right to learn of, opt out of, or obtain a human review of AI-based screening.

California job applicants should keep some things in mind when applying for work online. Other states aren’t bound by California regulations. Whether California employment law applies can depend on the employer’s California connections, where the relevant hiring conduct occurred, and the applicant’s circumstances. If you’re outside California, don’t assume its state laws apply.

Even companies hiring in-state may have HR departments recruiting remotely. Your resume may be processed by someone on the East Coast or overseas.

With this in mind, keep your eyes open for these warning signs:

• Resumes that are declined immediately or at odd hours or days
• Form emails that misspell your name or the job title in the same way it was misspelled on the job listing
• Privacy notices or opt-out notices, especially for California-based employers
• Job advertisements that ask dubious questions about accommodations or current location

If you have the option to ask the employer questions, inquire about their AI use, or ask if a human reviews the AI’s decision.

If You Believe You’ve Been Discriminated Against

In California, you can file a complaint against an employer with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). AI-related hiring discrimination is actionable, even if the bias was not intentional. For employment cases, you have three years from the date you were injured or affected. Consider contacting a California civil rights or employment law attorney for legal advice on your case. An attorney can explain the types of evidence you’ll need for your claim.

Collect as much evidence as possible about your case. This should include:

• Screenshots of the job listing
• Job description from the posting site and the company site if possible
• Any notices about use of AI and the vendor or designer
• Rejection emails with date and time stamps

Examine company reviews to see whether anyone else has had similar complaints. You may find complaints on LinkedIn or Reddit about the platform or employer.

You may discover an employer used an AST. Preserve any information about the vendor, the criteria used, and whether the employer describes testing the tool for bias. It can help an attorney evaluate whether the employer took reasonable steps to prevent discriminatory outcomes.

Get Legal Help From a California Employment Law Attorney

AI employment discrimination law is a new wrinkle on an old area of the law. You can improve your chances of a good outcome by consulting a California employment law attorney. They’ll examine your case, explain your options, and represent you going forward.