AI at Work in the US: Your Rights When Employers Use AI in Hiring, Monitoring, and Performance

Federal civil rights law and AI

Three federal laws form the foundation of US employee rights when employers use AI. None are AI-specific, but the EEOC has confirmed all three apply fully to AI-driven employment decisions.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. If an AI hiring or performance tool produces significantly lower selection rates for a protected group — even unintentionally — that is unlawful disparate impact discrimination. The employer is responsible for discriminatory AI outcomes even from third-party vendor tools. You do not need to prove intent. The EEOC's May 2023 guidance confirms this explicitly.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) creates two issues with AI. First, AI screening tools may screen out candidates with disabilities who are otherwise qualified — for example, a tool that assesses speech patterns may disadvantage people who stutter. Second, employers must provide reasonable accommodations in the hiring process, including when AI assessment tools are used. If an AI video interview tool disadvantages you because of a disability, you can request an alternative assessment.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers 40 and older. AI tools trained on data from younger workforces can develop systematic age bias — filtering out experience-heavy CVs, penalising longer career histories, or flagging graduation years. Unlike Title VII after 1991, ADEA disparate impact claims use a narrower standard — the pre-1991 Wards Cove framework under Smith v City of Jackson (2005) — requiring plaintiffs to identify a specific practice causing adverse impact, with a “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) defence available to employers. Separately, Gross v FBL Financial Services (2009) governs ADEA disparate treatment claims, requiring proof that age was the “but-for” cause. EEOC guidance confirms both apply to AI.

Your right to file a charge

If you believe an employer used AI in a way that discriminated against you based on a protected characteristic, you can file a charge with the EEOC at eeoc.gov. Time limits are strict: 180 days from the discriminatory act in states without a state anti-discrimination agency; 300 days in states with one (which includes most states). You must file with the EEOC before you can bring a federal discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC provides free charge-filing assistance and will investigate your claim.

State and city AI employment laws

Several states and cities have enacted AI-specific employee protections that go beyond federal law.

New York City Local Law 144 (effective July 5, 2023) is the most significant. It prohibits employers and employment agencies from using automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) in hiring or promotion decisions for NYC-based roles unless the tool has undergone an independent bias audit within the past year, audit results are publicly posted on the employer's website, and candidates receive at least 10 business days' advance notice that an AEDT will be used. If you apply for a job in NYC, you are entitled to: know an AEDT is being used, know what job qualifications or characteristics it assesses, and request an alternative process that does not use an AEDT. Civil penalties for non-compliance are $500–$1,500 per day. The NYC Comptroller's December 2025 audit found enforcement has been limited, but DCWP has committed to strengthening its enforcement program.

Illinois AI Video Interview Act requires employers to notify candidates before using AI to analyse video interviews, obtain consent, explain how the AI works, and limit sharing of video data. Illinois employers must also delete video and AI-generated data within 30 days of a request.

Maryland's Job Applicant Fairness Act restricts employers from using credit history in employment decisions with limited exceptions. While not AI-specific, it limits one input AI tools often use.

Colorado SB 21-169 (2021) requires insurers (including those offering employer-provided insurance) to test AI systems and algorithms for unfair discrimination against protected classes. Implementing regulations took effect October 2025.

California CCPA/CPRA gives California employees the right to know what personal information their employer has collected about them, including data collected by AI monitoring tools, to request deletion, and to opt out of the sale of their personal information. California employees can request a copy of the information the company holds about them.

Workplace monitoring and AI surveillance

US federal law does not prohibit employers from monitoring employees using AI on employer-owned systems during work hours. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) has a broad employer exception. However:

Some states require notification before monitoring. Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and several other states require employers to notify employees in writing about electronic monitoring. Failure to notify may create liability. New York's Electronic Monitoring Law (effective 2022) requires employers to notify new employees of monitoring at the time of hiring and to post the notice in a conspicuous location.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees' rights to engage in protected concerted activity — discussing wages, working conditions, and organising with colleagues. An employer cannot use AI monitoring to identify and retaliate against employees engaged in protected activity. This applies to both union and non-union workplaces. The NLRB has issued guidance on this and several recent cases address AI-enabled surveillance of protected activity.

Algorithmic management in gig and platform work

Workers classified as independent contractors — including gig economy workers on platforms like Uber, DoorDash, and Amazon Flex — have fewer protections but are not without rights. If your work is so controlled by an algorithm that you are economically dependent on the platform, you may be misclassified and entitled to employment law protections. The Department of Labor's 2024 final rule on worker classification is relevant — it applies a multifactor economic reality test rather than relying solely on the contract. Several states, including California under AB 5, apply their own classification tests.

What to do if you think AI discrimination has affected you

Start by gathering evidence: note the employer, role, date of decision, any communications about the process, and any statements about AI use. If an AI is used in hiring, NYC LL144 (and some employer commitments under EEOC settlement agreements) may entitle you to an explanation. Consider: filing an EEOC charge (federal law); filing with your state's civil rights agency; consulting an employment lawyer — many work on contingency in discrimination cases; contacting an advocacy organisation such as the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law or the ACLU.

The law in this area is developing rapidly. Stay informed about your state and city's specific AI employment protections, which continue to expand.