AI Makes Job Interviews Faster, But Compliance Harder
Illinois recently passed the first U.S. law regulating the use of AI to analyze video interviews with job applicants. However, the technology could have broader legal implications outside of what's likely to be a patchwork of similar state laws.
September 20, 2019 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Companies interested in capturing job interviews on video can now deploy artificial intelligence (AI) to help analyze qualities like body language or facial expression. However, such a trend could potentially see law firms and corporate legal attorneys racing to stay on top of yet another disparate set of state-level laws pertaining to the use of technology.
Illinois, for example, is the first state to formally establish legal parameters around the use of AI in video interviews. Passed in August and scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020, the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act addresses responsibilities companies hold with regards to consent, transparency and the destruction of the original video as well as all subsequent copies.
The law could set the table for a patchwork of similar laws to come—and that may not be a scenario that companies or their legal teams are eager to embrace.
According to Jeremy Mittman, a partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, employers operating in more than one jurisdiction already contend with variances in local laws concerning things like sick leave, which can differ from state-to state or even county-to-county.
"I've spoken with employers who would almost prefer in some ways a slightly more onerous law that applied everywhere as opposed to slightly more employer-friendly laws that were in a patchwork," Mittman said.
Still, employers may want to start wrapping their minds around the possibility of a state-centric approach to regulating AI use in video interviews. K.C. Halm, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, believes that states will lead the charge on regulating AI technology.
Ironically, the push towards further regulation may be somewhat driven by employers themselves. Halm expects businesses to increase their rate of AI adoption over the next few years to help streamline resource-intensive hiring activities.
For example, video interviews parsed with AI could help an employer looking to fill 100 positions at once to review nearly as many candidates in the course of a single day.
"I think AI adoption is going to continue at a break-neck pace, and I think state, local and federal regulators are beginning to become aware of this and will be more attentive to this technology in the months ahead [and] years ahead too," Halm said.
This means that depending on the scope of a company's operation, they could be dealing with multiple definitions of transparency, varying timelines for the destruction interview footage and competing expectations of notice.
Illinois' Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, for example, requires companies to explain to applicants how the AI technology involved works and the characteristics it evaluates. The law also mandates that footage be destroyed within 30-days upon applicant request.
The way that other states tackle those issues is likely to be similar, but ultimately different.
"It's rarely the case that states just copy other states' laws. They always try and put their own gloss on it," Mittman said.
A patchwork of specially-tailored regulations like the one in Illinois may not be the only source of headaches for businesses in relation to video interviews and AI. Other employment-related laws, such as The Americans with Disabilities Act, could also be triggered under the wrong circumstances.
AI tools that analyze a person's expressions, for example, could inadvertently discriminate against a job candidate who has a disability that impacts their ability to smile or display other facial cues as recognized by the software.
Mittman believes it's possible that an AI could even register conditions like anxiety or depression, which can be classified as disabilities under the law.
"It's not going to be a defense to say, 'We didn't intend to discriminate, we didn't intend to have disparate impact on minorities or other protected categories,'" Mittman said.
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
© 2024 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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