AI Programs Used by Employers May Lead to Title VII Discrimination Claims
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided guidance that AI programs will trigger Title VII discrimination violations when protected classes are disfavored in employment selection processes.
August 10, 2023 at 11:21 AM
6 minute read
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) programs to make employment-related decisions creates a risk for employers to be subject to Title VII discrimination claims. AI programs are complex machines that can potentially generate biased results against protected groups of people. Employers are becoming vastly dependent on AI programs to make decisions in hiring, promotions, terminations, and monitoring employee performance. The risk of bias in conjunction with employers' increased dependence on AI programs is leading to greater regulations and potential liabilities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided guidance that AI programs will trigger Title VII discrimination violations when protected classes are disfavored in employment selection processes.
Under EEOC guidance, AI programs that "make or inform decisions" pertaining to employment related selections will be treated as a selection procedure in Title VII discrimination claims. Regardless of an employer's intent, selection procedures are discriminatory when individuals in a protected group are selected at a "substantially" different rate than the selection rate of individuals in a nonprotected group. If a "substantial" difference exists, the employer must establish the selection procedure to be "job related and consistent with business necessity." Unless the charging party shows there is a "less discriminatory alternative available" for the employer to use in place of the AI program, the Title VII claim will fail.
This content has been archived.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 AllAnti-Abortion Groups' Challenge to New York's 'Boss Bill' Is Returning to Federal Trial Court
Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Bar Report - Jan. 27
- 2Cornell Claims AT&T, Verizon Violated the University's Wi-Fi Patents
- 3OCR Issues 'Dear Colleagues' Letter Regarding AI in Medicine
- 4Corporate Litigator Joins BakerHostetler From Fish & Richardson
- 5E-Discovery Provider Casepoint Merges With Government Software Company OPEXUS
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