EEOC Guidance on AI in Employment Selection
Effective date
Penalty
Title VII: back pay, front pay, compensatory damages up to $300,000, punitive damages, attorneys' fees. ADA: same framework. Each affected individual is a se…
Obligations mapped
6 obligations
Overview
If you are applying for a job or already employed, federal anti-discrimination law protects you from AI tools that unfairly screen you out. If an AI resume screener, video interview analyzer, or assessment tool disproportionately rejects people of a particular race, sex, or age group, the employer can be held liable even if they bought the tool from a vendor. If you have a disability, the employer may need to offer an alternative to any AI assessment that disadvantages you. These are not new laws. They are the existing rules from Title VII and the ADA applied to AI tools.
This is federal enforcement guidance.
See if this regulation applies to your company with the free exposure scan.
Who this applies to
This regulation applies to the following roles:
- Deployers and users of covered AI systems and tools
- United States federal law
This regulation applies to companies that use or deploy AI tools and systems built by other vendors. If your company uses AI-powered products in the areas listed below, this regulation may apply to you.
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2; UGESP, 29 C.F.R. 1607.3-1607.5 · 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5); 29 C.F.R. 1630.9 and related sections
AI categories covered
- Employment and hiring
Specific AI use cases:
- Resume screening and ranking
- Candidate assessment and scoring
- Video interview analysis
- Workforce scheduling and optimization
What this requires you to do
6 obligations identified from statutory analysis.
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2; UGESP, 29 C.F.R. 1607.3-1607.5
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2; 42 U.S.C. 12112; 29 U.S.C. 623
42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(6); 29 C.F.R. 1630.10
42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2); 29 C.F.R. 1630.13
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k); 29 C.F.R. 1607.3(B)
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.
Enforcement and penalties
Title VII: back pay, front pay, compensatory damages up to $300,000, punitive damages, attorneys' fees. ADA: same framework. Each affected individual is a separate claim. No separate EEOC-specific penalty structure.
Private right of action: plaintiffs may bring direct claims in addition to government enforcement.
Penalty amounts are based on statutory text and may be subject to adjustment, judicial interpretation, or enforcement discretion.
Related regulations
- In EffectAI-Specific
NYC Local Law 144 (Automated Employment Decision Tools)
NYC Local Law 144 requires employers and employment agencies using automated employment decision tools for hiring or promotion in New York City to conduct annual independent bias audits, publish results on their website, and notify candidates that an AEDT is being used.
Effective
- UpcomingAI-Specific
Colorado ADMT / AI Act (SB 26-189)
Colorado SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts SB 24-205 into an automated decision-making technology (ADMT) framework for consequential decisions. Starting January 1, 2027, covered developers may need to provide deployers with technical documentation and material-update notices. Covered deployers may need point-of-interaction notices, post-adverse-outcome disclosures, data-access and correction processes, human-review and reconsideration workflows, and three-year compliance records. SB 24-205 risk-management, impact-assessment, and reasonable-care artifacts remain useful governance evidence, but they are historical or reusable controls rather than standalone current-law duties under the new Colorado framework.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
Illinois Human Rights Act (HB 3773 AI amendment)
Illinois HB 3773 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to prohibit employers from using AI that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes, including using zip codes as proxies. Where applicable, employers may need to notify employees and applicants when AI is used in employment decisions. IDHR draft implementing rules circulated December 2025. No safe harbors or affirmative defenses.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California FEHA regulations on automated decision systems (Civil Rights Council)
California Civil Rights Council regulations apply FEHA's anti-discrimination framework to automated decision systems (ADS) in employment. Defines ADS broadly to include AI, ML, and algorithmic tools. Makes anti-bias testing evidence relevant to discrimination claims and defenses. Requires reasonable accommodation when ADS disadvantages disabled or religious individuals. Prohibits pre-offer medical inquiries via ADS. Employers with 5+ employees are covered. 4-year record retention required.
Effective
- In EffectFederal
FTC Enforcement Policy on AI and Algorithmic Fairness
FTC enforces Section 5 of the FTC Act against deceptive and unfair AI practices. Key areas: unsubstantiated AI marketing claims, AI products harmful to children, discriminatory AI outcomes, and deceptive AI-powered services. Operation AI Comply (September 2024) targeted five companies simultaneously. Algorithmic disgorgement remedy requires deletion of AI models trained on improperly collected data. Administration change in 2025 narrowed speculative risk enforcement but maintained fraud and misrepresentation focus.
Effective
- In EffectFederal
Executive Order 14110 on AI (Revoked)
Established federal policy priorities for AI safety, security, and rights protections across agencies. Directed agencies to issue additional standards, procurement rules, and risk controls. Revoked by Executive Order 14148 on January 20, 2025. Listed for historical reference. Key provisions revoked include NIST AI safety testing requirements, reporting requirements for dual-use foundation models, and watermarking mandates. However, NIST work products developed under EO 14110 (AI RMF, GenAI Profile) persist as voluntary frameworks.
Effective
- In EffectFederal
Executive Order 14281: Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy
Directs federal agencies to deprioritize disparate-impact enforcement across civil rights statutes (Title VII, Title VI, ECOA, Fair Housing Act). Affects AI-driven hiring, lending, housing, insurance decisions. AG directed to assess and potentially preempt state laws imposing disparate-impact liability (Section 7(a)). Companies remain exposed to private Title VII litigation and state AI laws (CO AI Act, IL HRA AI, NYC LL 144) that codify disparate-impact standards.
Effective
- In EffectFederal
DOJ AI Litigation Task Force
Coordinates federal civil litigation strategy on AI-related matters across the Department of Justice. Executive orders cannot preempt state law. Only Congress or courts can do that. Task Force is authorized to file lawsuits challenging state laws but as of April 2026 has NOT filed any. Congress rejected federal preemption twice: Senate vote 99-1 in July 2025, preemption language also dropped from NDAA in December 2025.
Effective
- In EffectFederal Guidance
SEC AI Guidance in Financial Services
SEC enforces existing fiduciary duties and disclosure requirements as applied to AI. Pursuing AI washing enforcement against companies overstating AI capabilities in securities filings. Proposed rule on predictive data analytics (2023-17958) unlikely to be finalized under current administration.
Effective
- In EffectFederal Guidance
FDA AI/ML Medical Device Framework
FDA requires pre-market review (510(k), De Novo, PMA) for AI/ML-based software that meets the definition of a medical device. Over 1,000 AI/ML-enabled devices authorized as of 2025. Includes predetermined change control plan for adaptive AI/ML devices. Most mature federal AI regulatory framework. Sector-specific. Has been operating for years.
Effective
- In EffectFederal Guidance
HUD AI Guidance in Housing
Fair Housing Act disparate impact standard applies to AI-driven tenant screening, lending algorithms, and property valuations. HUD 2023 disparate impact rule (reinstated) allows challenges to facially neutral AI practices with discriminatory effects. Meta 2022 settlement over AI ad targeting in housing is a key precedent. Disparate impact rule status under Trump administration should be monitored.
Effective
- In EffectFederal Guidance
DOL AI in Workplace Guidance
Non-binding principles for AI in the workplace covering transparency, human oversight, informed consent, data protection, non-discrimination, worker voice, and compliance with existing labor law. Issued under Biden DOL. Status under Trump administration uncertain. However, underlying labor law obligations persist.
Effective
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.