AI Hiring Laws by State: Audits, Notice, Bias Rules (2027)

As of November 4, 2026, AI hiring laws in the United States are a set of city and state rules on automated tools that screen, score or rank workers, and New York City's Local Law 144 (NYC Admin. Code 20-870 to 20-874) is the only law we found that requires a bias audit of a hiring tool. In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no federal statute on AI in hiring. No state law we found requires a bias audit.

Status as of November 4, 2026: NYC Local Law 144, Illinois HB 3773, the Illinois AI Video Interview Act, Maryland's facial recognition law and Connecticut's PA 26-15 secs. 13-14 and 26 are in force, and California and New Jersey apply existing anti-discrimination law to automated tools by rule. Colorado's SB 26-189 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, California's SB 947 July 1, 2027, and Connecticut's notice duties reach technology deployed on or after October 1, 2027. In Mobley v. Workday, an April 14, 2026 order says the deadline to join the age collective has passed and orders plaintiffs to disable public access to the website workdaycase.com by April 15, 2026. The case is pending, and its allegations are unproven.

This page covers laws on automated tools in hiring and employment in the United States: city, state and federal. It summarizes each jurisdiction and links its page on this site. It is general legal information, not legal advice.

AI Hiring Laws by State: What Is in Force and What Is Scheduled

As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws, and subject to the search limits shown in the table on our AI laws hub: New York City is the only place we found with a bias-audit requirement. In force today are Illinois (HB 3773, AI Video Interview Act), Maryland (facial recognition in interviews) and Connecticut (no defense, testing evidence, AI layoff disclosure); California and New Jersey apply existing anti-discrimination law by rule. Colorado, California and Connecticut add statutory duties in 2027, and Illinois adds limits on AI in public school teacher evaluations.

The hub's table marks some jurisdictions' statutes as not verified, including New Jersey's. Read a state that is missing below as "none found in our search", not as a statement that the state has no such law.

Which AI Hiring Laws Require a Bias Audit?

Only one on this list does. Local Law 144 requires an independent bias audit no more than one year before an automated employment decision tool is used. The others work differently, and the difference decides what an employer has to do.

• Audit: New York City.
• Ban on discriminatory effect: Illinois HB 3773.
• Notice or consent: Illinois's AI Video Interview Act, Maryland's waiver, and from 2027 Connecticut and Colorado.
• Existing anti-discrimination law applied by rule: California and New Jersey.
• Evidence rule: California and Connecticut let testing count as evidence without requiring it.

California's Civil Rights Council said in its Final Statement of Reasons that "the proposed regulations do not require anti-bias testing or similar efforts", and that they "identify such efforts, or the lack thereof, as evidence that may be relevant to a claim or available defense of discrimination." Connecticut's act says "The commission or court may consider evidence of anti-bias testing or similar proactive efforts to avoid the discriminatory practice". Neither one orders anyone to test.

The statutory words differ too, and coverage turns on them. New York City says "automated employment decision tool", Illinois says "artificial intelligence", Connecticut says "automated employment-related decision technology", California's rules and SB 947 say "automated-decision system" and "automated decision system", and Colorado says automated decision-making technology. A tool can fall inside one definition and outside another.

NYC Local Law 144: The Bias Audit Law

Local Law 144 bars an employer or employment agency from using an automated employment decision tool "to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision" in the city unless the tool had a bias audit in the prior year and a summary is public. It also requires notice to candidates and employees who reside in the city, at least 10 business days before use. "Employment decision" means "to screen candidates for employment or employees for promotion within the city", so it is a screening law, not a law on hiring and firing generally.

Penalties run up to $500 for a first violation and $500 to $1,500 for each later one, and each day of use and each missed notice is a separate violation. A State Comptroller audit published in December 2025 called the city's complaint process ineffective. Our Local Law 144 page has the definition, the audit contents, the notice rules and the enforcement record.

Illinois HB 3773 and the AI Video Interview Act

HB 3773 amended the Illinois Human Rights Act and took effect January 1, 2026. It reaches "recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment". Within those decisions it bars an employer from using "artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under this Article or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under this Article."

The test is effect, not intent. The statute defines artificial intelligence as "a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments."

The notice duty is written as a duty "to provide notice to an employee". Applicants appeared in the Department of Human Rights' draft rules, which were published May 15, 2026 and withdrawn by June 26, 2026, per the Flinn Report. The statute itself has no recordkeeping duty and no audit. Those record rules appeared only in the withdrawn draft.

The AI Video Interview Act is narrower and older. An employer that "asks applicants to record video interviews and uses an artificial intelligence analysis of the applicant-submitted videos" must, for positions based in Illinois, notify the applicant, explain "how the artificial intelligence works and what general types of characteristics it uses", and obtain consent. It limits sharing, requires deletion within 30 days of a request, and requires demographic reporting by employers that rely solely on AI analysis to choose who gets an in-person interview. The act has no penalty section. See Illinois AI Laws.

Maryland HB 1202: Facial Recognition in Job Interviews

Maryland's rule covers one thing. Under Lab. & Empl. 3-717, "An employer may not use a facial recognition service for the purpose of creating a facial template during an applicant's interview for employment unless an applicant consents". Consent means a waiver stating the applicant's name, the interview date, that the applicant consents, and "whether the applicant read the consent waiver". The section does not reach hiring software in general, and it names no penalty.

California: Civil Rights Rules, CCPA Rules and SB 947

California has several layers, and they do different jobs. The Civil Rights Council's rules, in force since October 1, 2025, apply the Fair Employment and Housing Act to automated-decision systems and carry a four-year record period. The Council contrasted its rule with the "pre-use notices and opt-out processes" of an earlier bill, AB 2930, and the rules are not an audit mandate.

The CCPA regulations treat employment as a significant decision. Businesses already using automated decision-making technology for one must comply "no later than January 1, 2027", and later users must comply whenever they use it. The duties run to businesses subject to the CCPA.

SB 947 (Ch. 859, signed September 30, 2026) adds Labor Code 1520 ff., operative July 1, 2027. It provides that "An employer shall not rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision." An employer that primarily relies on an output must direct a human to corroborate the decision, and must give a written post-use notice. Section 1522(a) also bars using an ADS to violate labor, safety, employment or civil rights laws, to infer an employee's protected status, or to predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising legal rights. The act's text speaks of employees and workers and does not mention applicants.

Three other 2026 acts start January 1, 2027:

• AB 1883 bars a workplace surveillance tool that uses AI on employees for "Recognizing, or making inferences or predictions about, an individual's emotional state" or for "Collecting neural data". It keeps a safety exception and allows a penalty of up to $500 per violation.
• AB 1331 bars workplace surveillance tools in workplace bathrooms, with stated exceptions, and allows up to $500 per violation.
• SB 951 requires a Cal/WARN notice for a layoff "caused in whole or in substantial part by an AI system or other automated technology" to say so and to give the numbers, job functions and type of technology. It also requires an Employment Development Department report on AI and hiring on or before January 1, 2028.

SB 7, the "No Robo Bosses" bill, was vetoed October 13, 2025, and the veto was sustained March 2, 2026. See California AI Laws.

New Jersey: N.J.A.C. 13:16 Disparate-Impact Rules

New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights adopted disparate-impact rules under the Law Against Discrimination, effective December 15, 2025. N.J.A.C. 13:16-3.2(c) lists automated tools as examples. A tool that screens on schedule "must include a mechanism for applicants to request a reasonable accommodation."

These rules are not a bias-audit law. The Division says they "do not indicate that the use of either word-of-mouth recruitment or automated employment decision tools is per se discriminatory" and that "the inclusion of these examples does not create any new liability or burdens for businesses". See New Jersey AI Laws.

Connecticut PA 26-15: No Defense Now, Notice From October 2027

Connecticut's Public Act 26-15 has three employment layers. Secs. 13-14, in force since October 1, 2026, amend the state's discrimination statutes: "The use of an automated employment-related decision technology, as defined in section 7 of this act, shall not be a defense against a complaint alleging a discriminatory practice". Sec. 26, in force the same day, requires an employer serving a federal WARN notice to tell the Labor Department whether the layoffs relate to its use of AI or another technological change.

Secs. 7-12 add notice duties that attach to technology deployed in the state on or after October 1, 2027. Covered technology "processes personal data and uses computation to generate any output" that is "a substantial factor used to make or materially influence an employment-related decision". The definition leaves out listed office and security software that does not make or materially influence such a decision, and decisions on workplace health and safety, scheduling and planning, or productivity monitoring.

Before the decision, the deployer gives the employee or applicant written notice of six items: that it deployed the technology, its purpose and the nature of the decision, the trade name, the categories of personal data and how they are assessed, the sources of that data, and contact information. Trade secrets may be withheld with a notice saying so.

Enforcement belongs "solely" to the Attorney General. For violations on or before December 31, 2027, the Attorney General may give a 60-day chance to cure, and the act provides no private right of action. See Connecticut AI Laws.

Colorado SB 26-189: Employment Under the ADMT Act

Colorado's SB 26-189 rewrote the state's AI act and is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, for decisions made on or after that date. Employment is one of seven covered domains. "Consumer" includes an employee and a job applicant who is a Colorado resident.

It reaches persons doing business in Colorado that develop or deploy covered technology that materially influences a consequential decision. Duties include developer documentation, deployer notice, adverse-outcome disclosure within 30 days, data correction, meaningful human review "to the extent commercially reasonable", and three-year records. This text has no audit requirement and no duty of reasonable care. HIPAA covered entities and business associates have an exemption, but it stops at a consequential decision related to employment or an employment opportunity.

The Attorney General enforces it, with a 60-day cure where the Attorney General deems cure possible, and the act says nothing in it creates a new private right of action. A federal court order in xAI's lawsuit bars the Attorney General from starting enforcement for alleged violations that occurred or occur on or before 14 days after a ruling on xAI's expected injunction request. The Attorney General's rules, 4 CCR 904-6, went to a hearing October 26, 2026, and no adoption was shown there as of November 4, 2026. See Colorado AI Laws.

Federal Law: Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA and What Changed at the Agencies

In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no federal statute on AI in hiring. Older statutes remain in the US Code, and none of the sections below names AI. We read them in the 2023 edition on GovInfo.

• Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k): disparate impact is established if a party "demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity", or under the alternative-practice route in the same subsection.
• ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(2): an employer may not "limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age". Whether job applicants can bring disparate-impact claims under this subsection is disputed. The Mobley court ruled that they can and found "substantial ground for difference of opinion".
• ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(6): discrimination includes "using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity".

Executive Order 14281, 90 FR 17537, signed April 23, 2025, makes it federal policy "to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible". Sec. 4 tells agencies to "deprioritize enforcement" of statutes to the extent they include disparate-impact liability, including 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, and it directed the Attorney General and the EEOC Chair to assess pending Title VII disparate-impact matters. The order repeals no statute.

The EEOC's ADA technical assistance document on software, algorithms and AI no longer loads at its published address as of November 4, 2026, although the EEOC's disability technical-assistance list still links it. The address we tried for its Title VII document on the same subject gave the same result. We found no EEOC statement about either document.

Federal policy on state AI laws runs through executive orders, agency action, litigation and proposals to Congress, and an executive order does not by its own words cancel a state law. Our AI laws hub covers that layer.

Mobley v. Workday: The Workday AI Hiring Lawsuit

Joining the age collective, as of the court's April 14, 2026 order (ECF 305): the order says "the deadline to join has passed". It said people who submitted a consent form on or before April 14, 2026 would be permitted to join, it said a form not filed or uploaded to the court's site and served on Workday does not meet the statutory criteria, and it ordered plaintiffs "to disable public access to the website workdaycase.com by April 15, 2026 to avoid confusion."

Anyone who seeks to join and did not submit a form by then, the order says, "must file an affidavit on the docket explaining the reason why their submission was untimely and seeking leave to join", and "Further leave to join will not be granted absent an individualized good cause showing." No later order named below changes that.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), is a pending private lawsuit against the HR software company. As of the docket copy we read on November 4, 2026, whose newest entry was ECF 445 of November 3, a discovery ruling, it had no ruling on the merits, no decertification ruling and no settlement in the rows read. The allegations are unproven. We did not read every filing, and this summary rests on the orders named below.

• July 12, 2024 (ECF 80, reported at 740 F. Supp. 3d 796): the court granted Workday's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. On the agent theory, it wrote: "The FAC plausibly alleges that Workday's customers delegate traditional hiring functions, including rejecting applicants, to the algorithmic decision-making tools provided by Workday." That addresses what the complaint alleges, not what happened. A later order says Mobley "has already been found to have stated a plausible ADEA claim on a disparate impact theory".
• May 16, 2025 (ECF 128): the court granted preliminary certification of an ADEA collective of people aged 40 and over who, from September 24, 2020, "applied for job opportunities using Workday, Inc.'s job application platform and were denied employment recommendations." It said Mobley "has substantially alleged the existence of a unified policy". The court said the "sole consequence" of that step "is the sending of court-approved written notice to workers who may wish to join the litigation as individuals", and Workday may later seek decertification. The race and disability claims are not part of the collective.
• July 29, 2025 (ECF 158): the court said the collective includes people whose applications were scored, sorted, ranked or screened using HiredScore AI features.
• December 2, 2025 (ECF 211): the court approved a notice plan, with opt-in forms dated no later than March 7, 2026. ECF 305, below, addressed forms submitted after that date.
• April 14, 2026 (ECF 305): the joinder order described at the top of this section. Plaintiffs had reported more than 500 consent forms submitted after March 7, 2026.
• June 22, 2026 (ECF 360): a split ruling on a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court granted the motion as to one plaintiff's disparate-impact race claim and the claims about Workday's own hiring, denied it as to one plaintiff's ADA claim, and wrote that the motion on the California FEHA claims "is otherwise DENIED."
• July 2, 2026 (ECF 376): the court denied certification for an interlocutory appeal on whether applicants can bring ADEA disparate-impact claims, saying clarity "is best pursued through a post-judgment appeal."
• September 14, 2026 (ECF 418): the plaintiffs moved for Rule 23 class certification, noticed for hearing March 9, 2027.

We are not part of the case, and we do not take sign-ups or claims. We cannot say how any order here applies to you.

What an Employer Must Do Under AI Hiring Laws

The duties depend on where the job, the worker and the employer are. A tool used in several places can fall under several of these at once. What each law provides today:

• A job in New York City (per DCWP's reading): a bias audit no more than one year old before use, a posted summary and distribution date, notice to city residents 10 business days before use, and data type, source and retention information on the employment section of the website, with posted instructions for a written request answered within 30 days. The employer answers for the audit, even where a vendor arranges it, and DCWP says the vendor "is not responsible".
• Illinois employers: no AI use with a discriminatory effect, no zip codes as a proxy, and notice to employees. With no rule in force, the statute alone sets the notice duty.
• AI analysis of video interviews for Illinois-based positions: notice, explanation and consent first, and deletion within 30 days of a request.
• Facial recognition in Maryland interviews: the signed waiver first.
• California: FEHA applies to automated-decision systems, and records run four years. The 2027 acts add the duties above.
• New Jersey: the Law Against Discrimination applies, and a tool that screens on schedule must include an accommodation mechanism.
• Connecticut: the technology is no defense to a discrimination complaint today, and notice duties start with technology deployed on or after October 1, 2027.
• Colorado: notice and adverse-outcome duties are scheduled for decisions on or after January 1, 2027.

Federal discrimination statutes are separate from these laws. DCWP says Local Law 144 "does not require any specific actions based on the results of a bias audit", and that employers must follow all anti-discrimination laws in deciding what to do.

What a Worker or Job Applicant Can Do

You may not be able to tell whether software screened you. The Comptroller's audit makes that point about New York City: if an employer discloses nothing and posts nothing, a candidate would not know. These are the routes the law sets out, and deadlines vary by law and by your facts.

• New York City: look for a posted audit summary in the employment section of the employer's website. You may make a written request for the type and source of data and the retention policy if it is not posted, and the employer has 30 days to answer. To report a missing audit or notice, contact DCWP through 311 or its website. DCWP sends discrimination claims to the NYC Commission on Human Rights.
• Illinois: a charge may be filed with the Department of Human Rights within 2 years after the alleged civil rights violation. You can also ask an employer to delete a video interview under the AI Video Interview Act.
• California: in employment cases, the Civil Rights Department says you must submit an intake form within three years of the date you were last harmed.
• Federal: the EEOC says that in general a charge must be filed within 180 calendar days of the discrimination, extended to 300 days where a state or local agency enforces a law against discrimination on the same basis. Age charges have slightly different rules.
• Disability accommodation: New York City's notice must include instructions for requesting an alternative process or an accommodation under other laws. New York City's rule does not itself require an alternative process.

For advice on your own situation, a local bar association's lawyer referral service or a legal aid office can point you to help. We do not rank lawyers or take cases.

What Changes in 2027

As of November 4, 2026, these dates and pending matters are on the calendar. A scheduled law is not yet in force, and a date can move.

As of November 4, 2026, we found no amendment to Local Law 144 scheduled for 2027 in the channels described on our Local Law 144 page.

AI Hiring Bills That Have Not Become Law

These are bills, not laws. The status of each is as shown on the legislature's pages read for our state research on November 4, 2026.

• New York S10147/A3779-A (employment electronic monitoring and automated employment decision tools): had not passed. A9581-B/S8706-B (AI Labor Information Act, annual reports to the Labor Department on AI's impact on hiring by covered businesses): the Assembly passed A9581-B June 3, 2026 and the Senate passed it June 4, 2026, 38 to 22. The bill page read November 4, 2026 showed no delivery to the Governor and no signature, so it had not become law as of that read.
• Michigan HB 5579 and SB 1077 (employer electronic monitoring and automated decision tools): HB 5579 showed no action after its February 24, 2026 referral, and SB 1077 was referred to Labor after its June 24, 2026 introduction. See Michigan AI Laws.
• Rhode Island H 7767 and S 2499: H 7767 was held for study April 15, 2026. S 2499 passed the Senate June 4, 2026, went to House Labor June 5, and shows nothing further. See Rhode Island AI Laws.
• California SB 366 died February 2, 2026, and SB 7 was vetoed, as noted above.

Related AI Laws

• AI Laws and Regulation in the United States
• NYC Local Law 144
• Illinois AI Laws
• California AI Laws
• Colorado AI Laws
• Connecticut AI Laws
• New York AI Laws
• New Jersey AI Laws
• Maryland AI Laws
• Texas AI Laws

Change Log

• November 4, 2026: Published. Covers the bias-audit, notice and anti-discrimination rules in force and scheduled, the federal statutes and agency changes, and Mobley v. Workday, stated from the orders named on the page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which states have AI hiring laws?

As of November 4, 2026, by our count of enacted laws and subject to the search limits on our AI laws hub, Illinois, Maryland and Connecticut have statutes in force, and California and New Jersey apply existing anti-discrimination law to automated tools by rule. Colorado, California and Connecticut add statutory duties in 2027. New York City has its own city law, Local Law 144.

Do any states require a bias audit for AI hiring tools?

New York City's Local Law 144 is the only law we found that requires a bias audit of a hiring tool, and it is a city law. No state law we found requires one, as of November 4, 2026, subject to the search limits on our AI laws hub.

Is there a federal law on AI in hiring?

In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no federal statute on AI in hiring. Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA remain in the US Code. The sections we read do not name AI. A private case, Mobley v. Workday, is pending.

What is the Workday AI lawsuit about?

Mobley v. Workday, No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL in federal court in Northern California, alleges that Workday's AI tools discriminated against applicants. A court preliminarily certified an age collective on May 16, 2025. The allegations are unproven, and as of November 4, 2026 the docket rows we read showed no merits ruling or settlement.

Can I join the Workday lawsuit?

As of the April 14, 2026 order we read (ECF 305), the deadline to join the age collective has passed. That order said people who submitted a consent form on or before April 14, 2026 would be permitted to join if the form was filed or uploaded to the court's site and served on Workday, and it ordered plaintiffs to disable public access to the website workdaycase.com by April 15, 2026. It says anyone else who seeks to join must file an affidavit on the docket explaining why the submission was untimely and seeking leave to join, and that further leave will not be granted absent an individualized good cause showing. A separate class certification motion is noticed for hearing March 9, 2027, and no later order named on this page changes that. We cannot say how this applies to you, and we take no sign-ups.

Does the Illinois AI law require notice to job applicants?

HB 3773 requires an employer to provide notice to an employee. Applicants appeared in the Department of Human Rights' draft rules, which were withdrawn by June 26, 2026. The separate AI Video Interview Act does require notice to applicants before AI analysis of their video interviews for Illinois-based positions.

Does California require bias testing of AI hiring tools?

No rule we read does. California's Civil Rights Council rules, in force since October 1, 2025, treat anti-bias testing as evidence relevant to a claim or defense, not as a mandate.

When does the Colorado AI law apply to hiring?

SB 26-189 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, for decisions made on or after that date, and employment is a covered domain. A federal court order bars the Attorney General from starting enforcement for alleged violations that occurred or occur on or before 14 days after a ruling on xAI's expected injunction request.

Does the EEOC still have AI hiring guidance?

The EEOC's ADA technical assistance document on software, algorithms and AI no longer loads at its published address as of November 4, 2026, although the EEOC's list page still links it. We found no EEOC statement about it.