January 23, 2023
No items found.

NYC Ban on Automated Employment Decision Tools Revised

In December, 2021, the New York City Council passed a measure that bans the use of artificial intelligence programs designed to make decisions related to employment. The measure seeks to ban the use of these programs in two areas: (1) screening job candidates for employment and (2) evaluation of current employees for promotion without a “bias audit, conducted not more than one year prior to the use of the tool.” Scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2023, the measure has been revised and clarified by the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection and is now scheduled for public hearing on January 23, 2023

While use of artificial intelligence (AI) is coveted by recruiters and employers for both the ease of use in finding employees and reducing operational costs, negative unintended consequences have not been adequately addressed. Systematic biases embedded into AI algorithms can perpetuate unfair hiring and promotional practices and imitate human biases. For instance, AI use of past resumes derived from candidates only of a particular gender, race, age, etc. may cause resumes from other groups to be downgraded thus upholding problematic systemic hiring practices. To combat this, bias audits are implemented to independently test whether the tool has a disparate impact upon a protected class (race, ethnicity, sex, disability, etc.). While other state legislatures have sought to curb this issue in both the hiring and promotion process, the NYC measure is among the most expansive. 

Once the measure goes into effect, New Yorkers can expect that employers using Automated Employment Decision-Making Tool (“AEDT”) will conduct bias audits of their AI tools and will publish those audits. Additionally, the law will require that employers provide notice to candidates and employees that an AEDT will be used, specifying which job qualifications and characteristics the AEDT will apply. Use of an AEDT without conducting a bias audit may result in civil penalties of up to $500 on day one, followed by penalties of $500 to $1,500 every day thereafter.

white line

The Rhetoric of Choice Obscures Our Social Obligations to Parents

January 30, 2020
Paid Family Leave
FMLA
Pregnancy Discrimination
Leave
Who should foot the bill or take responsibility for social reproduction as more women were pressed into the workforce, government or the individual? In the US, the answer was resounding: the individual. And this has had significant consequences for working parents since. By placing the responsibility on the individual, almost always the mother, parents have been in a bind for decades and any "choices" available reside in an astonishingly thin sliver of options constrained by structural inequalities

Female Flight Attendants and Pilots File Discrimination Suit Against Frontier Airlines, Alleging Discrimination against Pregnant and Nursing Mothers

January 13, 2020
Gender Discrimination
Pregnancy Discrimination
Two lawsuits were filed against Frontier airlines alleging that the Company required pregnant employees to suspend work duties months before they were scheduled to give birth, forcing employees to use their vacation days in lieu of paid time off, take unpaid maternity leave without Frontier providing alternatives for work, and refuse to accommodate breastfeeding and pregnant workers.

New Report from Uber Highlights the Risks of Driving in the Gig Economy

January 6, 2020
Sexual Harassment
Among the most significant risks to Uber drivers were those in the form of sexual and physical assault on the job, with 42% of assault cases being reported by drivers. The most common assault reported by drivers and riders was "non-consensual touching of a sexual body part," with 1,560 cases reported in 2018 alone.

Get In Touch

Knowing where to turn in legal matters can make a big difference. Contact our employment lawyers to determine if we can help you.