The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace
A high-level overview of some of the more prevalent challenges employers may encounter when deploying AI in the workplace, and guidance on the proactive steps employers should consider.
March 18, 2019 at 11:04 AM
6 minute read
As more and more companies begin to utilize Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the workplace, it becomes increasingly important for employers to understand both the risks and rewards that accompany this new technology. While the use of AI can be an efficient and cost effective means for employers to handle tasks such as talent acquisition, compensation analysis, and the completion of administrative duties, it is not without its challenges. Rather, as discussed below, the use of AI may also bring with it the potential for implicit bias and disparate impact toward protected categories, particularly in the context of gender and age. In addition, if AI is not properly introduced into the workforce, it may foster concerns among employees that the company no longer values their work or cause anxiety about employee job security. This article sets forth a high-level overview of some of the more prevalent challenges employers may encounter when deploying AI in the workplace, while also offering guidance on the proactive steps employers should consider when implementing or utilizing AI.
The Growing Use of AI
AI is often used in the workplace to assist employers with recruitment through the use of algorithms to make hiring decisions. According to a 2017 survey by the talent software firm CareerBuilder, approximately 55 percent of U.S. human resource managers opined that AI will become a regular part of their work within the next five years. Similarly, as reported by the Society for Human Resource Management following a 2018 survey conducted of over 1,100 in-house counsel, human resource professionals and C-suite executives, 49 percent of respondents said that they already use AI and advanced data analytics for recruiting and hiring. While the use of AI may assist these companies, the technology may not always eliminate bias in the recruitment process.
The Potential for Implicit Bias and Disparate Treatment
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin or religion with respect to all aspects of employment. Pursuant to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly Labor Review, Occupational Employment Protections to 2022, the growth of employment in computer science and engineering jobs is more than double the national average. Despite the surge in this field, women and minorities continue to be under-represented. In 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stated that diversity in the high-tech sector is “a timely and relevant topic for the Commission to investigate and address.” Since then, some companies have evaluated using AI in the recruitment process to increase diversity in their workforce. As discussed below, however, it may ultimately have the opposite effect.
As reported by Reuters, in 2017, the online tech giant Amazon announced it would be shuttering an experimental hiring tool it had been working on for the past several years. Amazon had hoped to use the tool to review job applicants' resumes and streamline the search for top talent. Unfortunately, it was discovered that the computer program showed a bias toward women when it came to recruitment for software developer jobs and other technical positions. According to Reuters, Amazon trained its computer programs to vet applicants through patterns in resumes submitted to the company during a 10-year period. Due to the fact that the tech industry remains a male-dominated field, the majority of resumes submitted during that time came from men. As a result, the AI system determined that male candidates were preferable and subsequently penalized resumes that included the word “women's” or downgraded graduates from certain all-women's colleges. Although Amazon edited the programs to prevent these occurrences, the company ultimately decided to discontinue the program, noting that company recruiters never used the software to evaluate candidates.
Similarly, employers considering the implementation of AI in the workplace should be cognizant of the potential for age discrimination claims. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits age-based discrimination against applicants or employees age 40 or over. The use of AI in the workplace to streamline certain activities could result in a disparate impact on an older workforce and potentially expose a company to discrimination claims. Specifically, if older workers struggle to adapt to new technology, or implicit bias results in the perception that younger employees are better suited to handle the changes than their older counterparts, employees age 40 or older may face adverse employment actions as a result. Another potential for bias could result if a company undergoes a reduction in force as a result of the introduction of AI into the workplace, as older workers may be laid off at a disproportionate rate to their younger counterparts if AI is not programmed to account for age-related considerations.
So how can employers reap the benefits of AI without also exposing themselves to the potential for liability? Below are some best practices for employers to keep in mind when using or implementing AI in the workplace.
Best Practices
- Engage third parties to assist in selecting AI software utilized for recruiting to ensure that the programs selected mitigate the effect of unconscious bias;
- Devise an action plan on how best to present the topic to current employees without creating an alarmist environment;
- Keep in mind the implications of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, Notification Act and similar state laws that require an employer to provide advance notice of job loss;
- Be aware of the protection afforded to workers under the National Labor Relations Act for engaging in concerted activities in response to changes in the workplace;
- Be cognizant of invasion of privacy claims stemming from the over-collection of data through AI.
While the use of AI in the workforce continues to grow, and a recent study conducted by McKinsey Global Institute noted that as much as one-third of the United States workforce could be displaced by automation by the year 2030, the shift to automation will not happen overnight, affording time to create policy changes and increased regulation in areas such as layoffs, severance pay and training. Against this backdrop, employers should ensure that they consider the implications of AI and the best practices recommended above when implementing new and innovative solutions in the workplace.
O'Kelly E. McWilliams III, a member at Mintz, advises US and International companies on a wide array of business and employment law issues. He focuses his practice on employment, agreements, disputes and compensation matters, and regularly provides guidance on managing employee relationships and has helped many companies investigate and respond to allegations of employer misconduct.
Jennifer R. Budoff, an associate at Mintz, provides clients with representation and counsel on a broad range of employment matters, with significant experience advising and defending employers in discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and wrongful termination matters, including the representation of employers in actions before Administrative Agencies and state and federal courts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAI Disclosures Under the Spotlight: SEC Expectations for Year-End Filings
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250