The EEOC’s current Strategic Enforcement Plan (FY 2024–2028) explicitly calls out technology-related employment discrimination, including AI and machine learning used in job ads, recruiting, and hiring decisions. The EEOC also flags automated systems that create adverse impact or create accessibility barriers.

The EEOC has also published AI-specific resources tied to:

ADA compliance in AI-enabled assessment tools

Adverse impact under Title VII

Visual disability and AI tool accessibility

Those are not optional reading anymore if you’re using screening, assessments, ranking, or filtering tools.

What is the EEOC’s role in AI?

EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan 2024-2028

OFCCP remains a live issue for federal contractors, especially around disability and veteran protections (Section 503 and VEVRAA). The agency’s current page confirms resumed activity under those program areas following Secretary’s Order 08-2025. It also notes the broader shift after the 2025 executive order changes affecting E.O. 11246 enforcement.

If you’re a contractor using automated selection tools, vendor claims won’t protect you.

Validation, documentation, and accessibility still matter.

EEOC Publications

NYC’s AEDT law is still the clearest local rulebook for AI hiring tools in the U.S. It prohibits use of automated employment decision tools unless there’s a bias audit within one year, public posting of audit information, and required candidate/employee notices.

This is the minimum bar many companies are now using as a baseline, even outside NYC.

Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT)

Colorado’s AI law is broader than hiring only, but employment is in scope through high-risk AI use. The official bill summary and bill text require developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination, with obligations tied to 2026 implementation language in the statute.

This matters for employers because it pushes accountability onto both:

-the company deploying the system

-the vendor building it

SB24-205 Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence

Maryland specifically restricts facial recognition use in employment interviews without applicant consent. The statute requires a signed waiver and plain-language disclosures before use.

If your hiring process includes video interview analytics, this is a direct compliance trigger.

MD General Assembly Labor & Employment Statues

MD Labor and Employment Code § 3-717 (2024)

California finalized employment regulations clarifying how existing anti-discrimination law applies to AI, algorithms, and other automated decision systems in employment decisions. The California Civil Rights Council announced final approval in 2025, and these rules now function as a major compliance benchmark in 2026.

California is a big signal state. Even if you’re not headquartered there, your vendors, applicants, or recruiters probably touch California.

Civil Rights Council Secures Approval for Regulations to Protect Against Employment Discrimination Related to Artificial Intelligence

Illinois is now a high-priority AI hiring jurisdiction

Illinois has become one of the most important states for AI hiring compliance because it combines:

-employment discrimination rules that now explicitly cover AI

-video interview AI disclosure/consent requirements

-biometric privacy exposure (BIPA)

That combination creates real risk for employers using AI-assisted screening, interview scoring, facial analysis, voice analysis, or any vendor collecting biometric data.

1) Illinois Human Rights Act now directly addresses AI discrimination

Illinois amended its Human Rights Act to prohibit the use of AI that has the effect of discriminating against employees on protected-class grounds. The law also specifically calls out the use of zip code as a proxy for protected classes and directs the Illinois Department of Human Rights to adopt rules for implementation.

(775 ILCS 5/) Illinois Human Rights Act.

Why this matters:
If your hiring or workforce system uses location, background, or inferred traits in ways that create disparate outcomes, Illinois is a state where that risk is now much easier to challenge.

2) Illinois AI Video Interview Act still matters

Illinois also has the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, which applies when employers use AI to analyze video interviews. The statute requires notice and consent before asking applicants to record video interviews for AI analysis

(820 ILCS 42/) Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act.

Why this matters:
A lot of teams assume this only applies to “old school” interview bots. It doesn’t. If a vendor scores recorded interviews using AI or algorithmic analysis, this law should be part of your intake checklist.

3) Illinois biometric law (BIPA) is still a major exposure layer

Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) remains one of the toughest biometric privacy laws in the country. It requires written notice, written release, retention/destruction policies, and limits disclosure for biometric identifiers/information (including face geometry and voiceprints), with a private right of action.

Why this matters for hiring AI:
If a hiring tool uses facial analysis, voice analysis, or any biometric-linked identity features, BIPA can become a direct litigation risk even before you get to discrimination analysis.

(740 ILCS 14/) Biometric Information Privacy Act.

AI hiring compliance and contingent workforce compliance are colliding.

If your workforce strategy relies on contractors, freelance talent, or platform labor, classification risk now overlaps with AI-enabled sourcing, routing, monitoring, and performance scoring.

U.S. DOL (Independent Contractor Classification)
The Department of Labor’s 2024 final rule remains central to classification analysis, and DOL fact sheets still frame the employee vs. independent contractor question around economic realities and worker dependence. DOL also issued 2025 guidance directing Wage and Hour investigators not to apply the 2024 rule’s analysis in current enforcement while the rule is under review, even though the guidance does not change the underlying regulations.

That means employers need a real classification posture, not just a policy PDF.

What we watch here:

-contractor vs. employee classification risk

-AI-driven scheduling, routing, and productivity scoring

-vendor platforms and “marketplace” labor models

-audit trails for worker status decisions

Final Rule: Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, RIN 1235-AA43

US Department of Labor issues guidance on independent contractor misclassification enforcement

Fact Sheet 13: Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The EU AI Act classifies employment-related AI systems as high-risk, including systems used for recruitment, filtering job applications, evaluating candidates, and making decisions about work relationships, promotion, termination, or worker monitoring.

The Act also prohibits certain uses, including emotion recognition in workplace contexts (with narrow exceptions).

This is a major shift. Employment AI is now explicitly treated as a regulated risk category in Europe.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance)

GDPR still matters just as much as the AI Act. Article 22 gives people the right not to be subject to certain decisions based solely on automated processing that produce legal or similarly significant effects, and it requires safeguards like human intervention and the right to contest decisions where exceptions apply. GDPR also requires meaningful information about automated decision-making logic in the transparency framework.

For hiring teams, this hits:

-candidate screening

-ranking logic

-rejection workflows

-explainability and appeals process

-cross-border data transfers and processor controls

REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

This is one of the most important contingent workforce developments in Europe. It directly addresses algorithmic management in platform work, including transparency, human oversight, and review of automated monitoring and decision-making systems. It also establishes a rebuttable legal presumption framework for employment status determinations and requires Member States to transpose the directive by December 2, 2026.

If you rely on platform labor, this is not niche. It’s operational.

Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work (Text with EEA relevance)

Most companies are behind on the basics. If you’re using AI or automated tools in hiring, you should already have: a current inventory of tools used across the hiring funnel documented decision points and who owns them adverse impact testing and validation standards accessibility review for candidate-facing systems vendor contract language for audit rights and documentation a notice and transparency workflow a process for human review and escalation a contingent workforce classification review if AI touches staffing or platform labor If you don’t have those, you don’t have defensibility.

Regulatory Watch is part of how we help clients stay ahead without turning recruiting into legal theater.

We translate emerging requirements into:

-operational controls

-vendor questions

-audit-ready documentation

-executive risk language

-implementation priorities your team can actually run

This page is updated as new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, and practical compliance standards evolve.

This page is updated as new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, and practical compliance standards evolve.