AI hiring and employment laws by state
AI Laws USA tracks 65 U.S. AI rules on AI hiring and employment across federal, state, county, and city government. Each entry links to its official source.
Federal AI hiring and employment rules (16)
-
In effect
EEOC v. iTutorGroup
E.D.N.Y. · Effective September 8, 2023 · EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02565 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2023)
The EEOC's first AI-hiring-discrimination case ended with a $365,000 consent decree in September 2023. iTutorGroup's online application system was programmed to auto-reject female applicants 55+ and male applicants 60+ — a clear ADEA violation through algorithmic age screening.
-
In effect
FCRA (AI in credit & background checks)
United States · Effective April 25, 1971 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
When a company uses a consumer report or score — including AI-generated risk scores from background-check and tenant/employment screening firms — to deny you credit, insurance, housing, or a job, it must tell you and identify the agency that supplied the report. You have the right to a free copy of your file and to dispute inaccurate information, no matter how algorithmic the scoring was.
-
In effect
Title VII / ADA (AI hiring)
United States · Effective July 2, 1965 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Federal anti-discrimination law applies when employers use AI tools to screen resumes, score interviews, or rank candidates: if an AI tool disproportionately screens out people by race, sex, disability, or other protected traits, the employer can be liable. The EEOC's specific AI guidance documents from 2023 were removed in January 2025, but the underlying laws are unchanged and still enforceable.
-
In effect
OFCCP AI Selection Guidance
United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · OFCCP AI EEO Guidance (Apr. 29, 2024)
Federal contractors using AI in hiring must comply with OFCCP nondiscrimination requirements: vendor due diligence, recordkeeping, validation under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and accommodations for applicants with disabilities. OFCCP makes clear contractors cannot outsource liability to AI vendors.
-
In effect
DOL WHD FAB 2024-1
United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · DOL WHD FAB 2024-1 (Apr. 29, 2024)
DOL Wage and Hour Division guidance on FLSA, FMLA, PUMP Act, and EPPA compliance when employers use AI for scheduling, timekeeping, monitoring, or performance evaluation.
-
In effect
EEOC AI Title VII Guidance
United States · Effective May 18, 2023 · EEOC TA (May 18, 2023)
EEOC guidance applying Title VII disparate-impact analysis to AI hiring tools. Employers are liable for discriminatory outcomes even when the tool is built by a vendor.
-
In effect
OSHA industrial robots
United States · Effective April 28, 1971 · 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212
OSHA does not have a robot-specific standard, but uses its general machine-guarding rule and the General Duty Clause to require employers to protect workers from industrial robots. Its Technical Manual Chapter 4 incorporates the ANSI/RIA R15.06 robot safety standard as the de facto benchmark for guarding, presence-sensing, and lockout/tagout around robotic cells and collaborative robots ('cobots').
-
Blocked / in litigation
Harper v. Sirius XM
E.D. Mich. · Effective August 4, 2025 · Harper v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2:25-cv-12403 (E.D. Mich., filed Aug. 4, 2025)
A private class action filed in August 2025 in the Eastern District of Michigan alleges that Sirius XM Radio's automated applicant-screening tools produced unlawful disparate impact against Black and minority job applicants under Title VII. Filed shortly after the EEOC's FY2024 enforcement-focus announcement targeting Sirius XM's AI hiring systems, the case is one of the first private Title VII class actions to directly challenge a corporate AI hiring algorithm.
-
In effect
OPM AI Workforce Guidance
United States · Effective April 29, 2024 · OPM CHCO Memo (Apr. 29, 2024)
OPM AI competency model and skills-based hiring guidance for federal AI/data roles under EO 14110 and the AI in Government Act.
-
In effect
EEOC SEP FY24-28 (AI priority)
United States · Effective September 21, 2023 · 88 Fed. Reg. 65042
EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan elevates algorithmic and AI hiring discrimination to one of the agency's top investigation priorities through FY 2028 — even after the agency removed its 2023 AI technical assistance documents in January 2025.
-
In effect
DOJ Civil Rights AI Statement
United States · Effective April 25, 2023 · DOJ-CFPB-EEOC-FTC Joint Statement (Apr. 25, 2023)
DOJ joined three other federal agencies in an interagency statement confirming that existing civil rights laws — Fair Housing Act, ECOA, Title VII, ADA — apply fully to AI and algorithmic systems. AI does not create a 'liability shield' for discrimination.
-
In effect
2026-07087
United States · ED 2026-07087
The Department of Education (Department) announces one priority and related definitions for use in currently authorized discretionary grant programs or programs that may be authorized in the future. The Secretary may choose to use an entire priority for a grant program or a particular competition or use one or more of the priority's component parts. This priority and definitions augment the initial set of three Secretary's Supplemental Priorities on Evidence- Based Literacy, Educational Choice, and Returning Education to the States published as final priorities on September 9, 2025; the additi
-
Blocked / in litigation
Mobley v. Workday (AI Hiring Bias)
United States · Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00770 (N.D. Cal.)
Derek Mobley's collective action suit in federal court alleges that Workday's AI hiring and screening tools systematically discriminated against Black, disabled, and older job applicants — denying him hundreds of opportunities. As of June 2026, the case has survived multiple dismissal motions; a court authorized notice to class members in February 2026 (March 7 opt-in deadline), and the court rejected Workday's argument that older workers can't be 'applicants' under the ADEA. The case is in discovery and could establish landmark precedent on AI vendor liability.
-
Proposed / pending
Stop Spying Bosses Act (Senate, 2026)
United States · Stop Spying Bosses Act, introduced June 18, 2026, U.S. Senate (Markey/Schatz/Booker et al.)
The Stop Spying Bosses Act, introduced June 18, 2026 in the U.S. Senate by Senators Markey, Schatz, and Booker, would sharply limit what data employers can collect on workers and how they can use it. Under the bill, employers could only collect data strictly necessary for a defined legitimate work purpose, and would be prohibited from monitoring union activity, political or religious views, immigration status, off-duty conduct, or health information. Biometric data collection — fingerprints, voiceprints, iris scans, facial maps, gait patterns — would require express consent and a legitimate work purpose. The bill would also prohibit using collected data to predict worker behavior, emotions, or beliefs unrelated to job performance. Companion legislation is the Senate No Robot Bosses Act (also introduced June 18, 2026). Senate companion to the House-side No Robot Bosses Act (HB 6371).
-
Blocked / in litigation
Meta AI Layoff Discrimination Lawsuit (2026)
United States · Effective July 13, 2026 · 26 Meta employees v. Meta Platforms, Inc., N.D. Cal. (Oakland), filed July 15, 2026; FMLA, ADA, PDA, PWFA claims
Twenty-six current and former Meta employees filed a lawsuit on July 15, 2026 in the Northern District of California (Oakland) alleging that Meta's internal AI system called 'Metamate' was used to select workers for layoffs in a way that disproportionately targeted employees on medical leave, pregnancy leave, and parental leave. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The court denied an emergency injunction request on July 17, 2026. The case represents a significant test of employer liability when an AI system makes or influences employment termination decisions affecting workers with protected characteristics.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Kistler v. Eightfold AI (FCRA, AI hiring)
United States · Effective January 20, 2026 · Kistler et al. v. Eightfold AI Inc., Case 3:26-cv-1768 (N.D. Cal.); 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (FCRA)
Erin Kistler and Sruti Bhaumik filed a class action in California Superior Court in January 2026 (later removed to federal court as Case 3:26-cv-1768 in the Northern District of California) against Eightfold AI, a leading AI hiring platform. The plaintiffs allege that Eightfold scraped over one billion worker profiles and used an AI model to rank job applicants on a scale of 0 to 5 without providing the disclosures and adverse action notices required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The case targets AI hiring tools that function as employment screening reports, arguing that the FCRA's consumer-report protections extend to AI-driven applicant scoring systems. A motion to dismiss is set for hearing on August 4, 2026 before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
State AI hiring and employment rules (39)
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1405, Ch. 178, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 9, 2026)
California Assembly Bill 1405 creates a state registry for AI auditors and sets standards for their independence, transparency and integrity. Governor Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, the same day he signed Senate Bill 813, which sets up a framework for independent organizations to assess AI systems. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, and the Government Operations Agency must have the registry running by January 1, 2029, after which AI auditors must be registered. Registered auditors must be independent of the companies they audit, may not audit their own work or seek jobs with the company during an audit, and may not block or punish employee whistleblowers. An auditor who breaks the rules can be removed from the registry and referred to the Attorney General. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan authored the bill.
-
In effect
Washington SHB 1672 (employee monitoring notice, ADS restrictions, emotion AI ban)
Washington · Effective July 1, 2026 · Wash. SHB 1672 (2025 Session), effective July 1, 2026
Washington SHB 1672, effective July 1, 2026, is one of the most comprehensive U.S. employer monitoring laws. Employers must give employees 15 calendar days' written notice before any monitoring begins or before any change to monitoring. Notice must specify what is monitored, the method used, the purpose, who can access the data, and how long it is retained. The law prohibits off-duty monitoring, monitoring in private spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms), and monitoring personal vehicles. It restricts AI-based emotion recognition, gait recognition, and facial recognition in employment-related decisions. Employers must conduct impact assessments before deploying automated decision systems and must provide human oversight of ADS-driven performance evaluations. Employees have a private right of action with damages of at least $500 per violation plus attorney fees. Civil penalties may reach $10,000 per violation. The law applies to any employer with one or more Washington employees, including remote employees of out-of-state companies.
-
In effect
CA CPPA ADMT Regs
CA · Effective January 1, 2026 · 11 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 7200-7232
California's privacy agency finalized binding regulations governing automated decision-making and AI used to make significant decisions about Californians — including hiring, housing, education, healthcare, financial services, and ads to minors. Consumers gain rights to pre-use notice, opt-out, and access to information about how AI made the decision.
-
In effect
CCPA/CPRA + ADMT Regulations
California · Effective January 1, 2026 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, div. 6
California's main privacy law gives consumers rights to know, delete, correct, and opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information. New regulations finalized in 2025 add rights around automated decision-making technology (ADMT): businesses using ADMT for significant decisions (jobs, housing, credit, healthcare) must give pre-use notice, let people opt out, and provide access to how decisions were made.
-
In effect
HB 3773 (AI Employment Discrimination)
Illinois · Effective January 1, 2026 · P.A. 103-0804, amending 775 ILCS 5; P.A. 104-0425 (SB 2487, 2026 civil penalty amendment)
Illinois employers may not use AI in ways that discriminate against protected classes in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, or other employment terms, and may not use zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics. Employers must notify workers and applicants when AI is used in employment decisions.
-
In effect
California CRC rules (FEHA anti-bias law applied to AI hiring/employment tools)
California · Effective October 1, 2025 · Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 (Civil Rights Council ADS regulations); Cal. Gov. Code 12940 et seq. (FEHA)
These regulations make clear that California's existing anti-discrimination employment law applies to automated-decision systems, including AI tools used in hiring, promotion, and other job decisions. Employers cannot use AI or algorithmic tools that discriminate against people based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, age, or disability, and must keep records related to these systems for at least four years.
-
In effect
BIPA
Illinois · Effective October 3, 2008 · 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.
The strongest US biometric privacy law: companies must get written consent before collecting fingerprints, face scans, voiceprints, or other biometrics, publish retention/destruction policies, and cannot sell biometric data. Individuals can sue directly and recover $1,000–$5,000 per violation, which has produced major settlements against facial recognition and AI companies.
-
In effect
MD HB 1339 (Automated Decision Systems, 2026)
Maryland · Effective October 1, 2026 · Md. HB 1339 (2026 Reg. Sess.)
Maryland employers that use automated decision systems in hiring, promotion, or termination decisions must disclose to applicants and employees that an automated system is being used. Employers must also conduct and retain impact assessments evaluating whether their ADS produces disparate outcomes by race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Penalties run up to $10,000 per violation. Takes effect October 1, 2026.
-
In effect
Connecticut PA 26-73 (employee electronic monitoring disclosure)
Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Pub. Act 26-73 (Substitute SB 472, 2026), eff. Oct. 1, 2026
Connecticut employers must provide written notice to employees before electronically monitoring their activities on employer-owned devices or networks. The law bars employers from engaging in deceptive or covert electronic monitoring of employees. It requires employers to clearly disclose the types of monitoring that may occur and to obtain acknowledgment from employees. The law covers monitoring of email, internet usage, telephone calls, and computer activity on employer systems. It takes effect October 1, 2026 and is enforced by the Connecticut Department of Labor.
-
In effect
Maine LD 61 (employer surveillance disclosure & prohibition)
Maine · Effective July 14, 2026 · Maine P.L. 2025, Ch. 524 (LD 61 / H.P. 25), 26 M.R.S. § 620-A, effective July 14, 2026
Maine's LD 61 (P.L. 2025, Ch. 524) requires employers to notify employees before any surveillance begins and to disclose surveillance practices to job applicants during interviews. Employers must provide annual written notice to all current employees describing what is monitored, how, and why. Employees may refuse installation of monitoring software on their personal devices. The law prohibits audiovisual monitoring in an employee's home, personal vehicle, or personal property. Civil fines of $100–$500 apply per violation. The law covers all public and private employers in Maine. Effective July 14, 2026.
-
In effect
CA EO N-6-26 (AI Workforce)
California · Effective May 21, 2026 · California Executive Order N-6-26 (May 21, 2026)
California's first executive order focused on AI's impact on workers. Directs state agencies, labor groups, employer groups, and AI industry partners to study AI-driven workforce displacement, recommend updates to the California WARN Act, expand dislocated-worker strategies, and identify ways to share AI's economic benefits more broadly with workers. No immediate employer mandates — but creates the framework for future legislation and regulatory action.
-
In effect
New York Fashion Workers Act (models must consent to AI digital replicas)
New York · Effective June 19, 2025 · New York State Fashion Workers Act; L. 2024, ch. 683 (S9832)
Before a modeling agency or a client can create or use an AI digital replica of a model (such as a computer-generated version of their face, body, or voice), they must get the model's clear written consent, separate from the regular representation contract, that spells out the scope, purpose, pay, and how long the replica will be used.
-
In effect
California AB 2602 (vague AI voice/likeness contract clauses unenforceable)
California · Effective January 1, 2025 · Cal. Civ. Code 1745.5 (AB 2602, Stats. 2024)
This law protects performers and others from signing away the rights to an AI-generated digital replica of their voice or likeness without understanding what they are agreeing to. If a contract lets someone create or use a digital replica of you for a new performance, that clause cannot be enforced when it fails to reasonably describe how the replica will be used and you did not have a lawyer or union representing you when you signed.
-
In effect
New York S7676B (voids vague AI voice/likeness contract clauses)
New York · Effective January 1, 2025 · N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-302; L. 2024, ch. 569 (S7676B)
A contract clause that lets a company create or use an AI digital replica of a person's voice or likeness is unenforceable if it does not reasonably specifically describe how the replica will be used, unless the person had a lawyer or a union representing them when they signed. It is aimed at protecting performers from signing away their digital likeness in broad, vague terms.
-
In effect
IL AI Video Interview Act (2019, first-in-nation)
IL · Effective January 1, 2020 · 820 ILCS 42/1 et seq. (P.A. 101-0260, 2019; P.A. 102-0407, 2021)
Signed by Governor Pritzker on August 9, 2019, the Illinois AI Video Interview Act was the first U.S. state law specifically regulating AI in hiring. It requires employer notice, applicant consent, and explanation of how AI works before using AI to analyze a video interview. 2022 amendment (P.A. 102-0407) added demographic data collection. Still in effect 2026 at 820 ILCS 42/1 et seq.
-
In effect
MI UIA MIDAS Reform Rules
MI · Effective December 13, 2017 · MCL § 421.62a; 2017 Mich. Pub. Acts 224-228
After Michigan's MIDAS automated fraud-detection system wrongly accused tens of thousands of unemployment claimants of fraud and seized their tax refunds, Michigan adopted statutory and regulatory reforms requiring human review before fraud determinations, restitution for wrongful determinations, and prohibition on fully automated fraud findings.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California AB 1331 workplace bathroom surveillance ban
California · Cal. AB 1331 (2025-2026), Stats. 2026, ch. 851
California's AB 1331 bars employers from using workplace surveillance tools to monitor employees in workplace bathrooms, with limited exceptions. Employees may, in certain circumstances, leave surveillance devices outside the bathroom. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors can enforce it, with civil penalties of up to $500 per violation.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Stats. 2026, ch. 179 (SB 813); Cal. Gov. Code §§ 8898-8898.4
California Senate Bill 813, by Senator Jerry McNerney, sets up a voluntary system for independent organizations that check the risks of AI systems and models. Governor Gavin Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, alongside Assembly Bill 1405, which creates a state registry of AI auditors. By January 1, 2028, the state's Government Operations Agency must set the rules for which organizations can be designated as 'independent verification organizations': how to apply, what expertise and independence they need (including limits on being paid in ways that depend on the result), and when a designation can be suspended or taken away. The agency must gather input from working groups that include AI company engineers and AI safety experts and report to the Legislature, and designated organizations must file yearly reports. The law does not require any AI company to use one of these organizations and does not create new liability. It takes effect January 1, 2027.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect)
SB 26-189 (Colorado ADMT Law)
Colorado · Effective January 1, 2027 · SB 26-189 (Colo. 2026)
Colorado's replacement AI law focuses on transparency rather than broad anti-discrimination duties. Starting January 1, 2027, companies using automated decision-making technology to materially influence consequential decisions (employment, housing, lending, insurance, healthcare) must notify consumers before use and provide post-decision disclosures; developers must give deployers technical documentation.
-
In effect
CT SB 5 (2026 AI Act)
Connecticut · Effective October 1, 2026 · Conn. Public Act 26-15 (SB 5, 2026)
After years of failed attempts, Connecticut enacted a comprehensive AI law in 2026 (Public Act 26-15, signed May 27, 2026). Starting October 1, 2026, employers filing federal layoff (WARN) notices must tell the state whether the layoffs relate to AI, and state anti-discrimination law makes clear that using automated hiring or employment-decision technology is no defense to a discrimination complaint. Strict AI companion-chatbot rules, especially for children, start January 1, 2027. Duties on developers and employers that use automated employment-decision technology apply to tools deployed on or after October 1, 2027.
-
In effect
Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence
Connecticut · Effective February 25, 2026 · Attorney General Tong Memorandum on Artificial Intelligence
Connecticut AG William Tong issued a memorandum explaining how existing Connecticut civil rights, data privacy and security, consumer protection (unfair trade practices), and antitrust laws already apply to AI systems, signaling enforcement priorities.
-
In effect
New York S8831 (shields public employees from AI displacement)
New York · Effective February 13, 2026 · N.Y. L.2026, ch. 86 (S8831), chapter amendment to L.2025, ch. 711 (S7599-C)
This law amends New York's education, state technology, and civil service laws to protect public employees from harms caused by artificial intelligence systems. It guards against AI being used in ways that would impair workers' collective-bargaining rights, lead to their discharge or displacement, transfer their job duties to an AI system, or cut their hours, wages, or benefits.
-
In effect
NJ N.J.A.C. 13:16 (bias law covers AI hiring tools)
New Jersey · Effective December 15, 2025 · N.J.A.C. 13:16 (R.2025 d.150); N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.
New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights adopted rules confirming that the state's Law Against Discrimination reaches automated employment decision tools, including AI, that automate, aid, or replace human employment decision-making. The rules define such tools broadly and give concrete examples of how they can produce a disparate impact on applicants and employees in protected classes. Employers remain responsible even for vendor-supplied tools.
-
In effect
Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)
Montana · Effective August 11, 2025 · Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)
Gov. Gianforte's order directs the Department of Labor & Industry and the State Workforce Innovation Board to expand AI training, integrate AI tools into workforce services, and prioritize AI-readiness in state talent-development programs.
-
In effect
New York A433 (state agencies must list AI employment tools)
New York · Effective July 1, 2025 · N.Y. State Technology Law / Civil Service Law; L. 2025, ch. 96 (A433)
Any New York State agency that uses an automated tool to help make employment decisions must publicly list those tools, and the state's IT office must keep a public inventory of state-agency AI systems that affect the public. The law also protects state workers' existing collective-bargaining rights and bars using AI to displace them.
-
In effect
Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o
California · Effective January 13, 2025 · Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application of California Law to AI
California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued two legal advisories clarifying that entities developing, selling, or using AI must comply with existing California consumer-protection, civil-rights, competition, data-privacy, and election-misinformation laws, plus new AI laws effective January 1, 2025, with a second advisory targeting healthcare entities.
-
In effect
NJ AG Platkin / DCR
NJ · Effective January 9, 2025 · NJ AG Platkin / DCR — Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the NJLAD (2025-01-09)
13-page guidance affirming NJLAD applies to ADS-driven discrimination in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations. Launches Civil Rights and Technology Initiative and Civil Rights Innovation Lab.
-
In effect
Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey La
New Jersey · Effective January 9, 2025 · Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
AG Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights issued guidance clarifying that the NJ Law Against Discrimination applies to algorithmic discrimination from AI and automated decision tools, so covered entities can be liable for disparate treatment or disparate impact even without intent.
-
In effect
NY AG
NY · Effective October 17, 2024 · NY AG — Symposium Report on the Next Decade of AI (enforcement priorities) (2024-10-17)
James outlines enforcement priorities: hiring tool bias, GenAI misinformation, deepfakes, ADS. References LL144 precedent; previews state ADS guidance and legislative recommendations.
-
In effect
WI EO 211
WI · Effective August 23, 2023 · Wis. Exec. Order No. 211 (Aug. 23, 2023)
Governor Evers's EO 211 created a workforce-focused AI Task Force that produced a 2024 advisory action plan on AI's labor-market impact, with recommendations for workforce development and reskilling.
- 9 more
- Cothron v. White Castle · IL · In effect
- AI Video Interview Act · Illinois · In effect
- MI SAVE Acts (2016 AV package) · Michigan · In effect
- Colorado AI Act (repealed) · Colorado · Repealed / replaced
- PA HR 653 AI workforce data study · Pennsylvania · Proposed / pending
- NJ S4712 AI processing tax for displaced workers · New Jersey · Proposed / pending
- CA SB 7 No Robo Bosses Act (vetoed 2025) · CA · Vetoed
- VA HB 2094 (vetoed) · VA · Vetoed
- CA AB 2930 (died) · CA · Expired
City / local AI hiring and employment rules (10)
-
In effect
NYC AEDT Bias Audit Law (LL 144)
New York City, NY · Effective January 1, 2023 · NYC Local Law 144 of 2021; NYC Admin. Code §§ 20-870 to 20-874
Employers and employment agencies in New York City may not use AI hiring or promotion tools unless the tool has passed an independent bias audit within the past year. Job candidates must be told an automated tool is being used and can request information about the data it relies on.
-
In effect
DC AI Training Mandate
Washington, DC · Effective April 1, 2025 · OCTO Responsible AI Training Program (effective 2025)
DC became the first major US city to mandate Responsible AI training for all DC government employees and contractors, delivered by OCTO with InnovateUS to operationalize the DC AI Values and OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy.
-
In effect
Austin AI Governance Resolution (2025)
Austin, TX · Effective April 24, 2025 · City of Austin, Tex., Resolution 20250424-055 (adopted Apr. 24, 2025)
The Austin City Council voted unanimously on April 24, 2025 to adopt Resolution 20250424-055, establishing an ethical AI governance framework for municipal operations. The resolution prohibits real-time employee surveillance by AI, bans AI-based productivity scoring or behavioral monitoring without human supervisor review and verification, bars AI from automated policing decisions, and creates a 'no displacement without consultation' labor policy guaranteeing that no AI system will significantly alter or eliminate job classifications without prior notice and consultation with affected employees and their unions. It also requires an annual public audit of all city AI use, mandates human review and oversight for all AI-influenced decisions, and directs the City Manager to study the environmental and equity impacts of data centers in the region. Sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes.
-
Proposed / pending
AI Gendered Impact Assessment + Interagency Taskforce
New York City · NYC Int 0287-2026
Requires the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications to conduct biennial assessments of whether algorithmic tools using gender data may create disparate impacts. Establishes an interagency task force meeting at least twice yearly to evaluate how AI affects city employees' employment outcomes by gender (job displacement, role changes). Task force draws from administrative services, worker protection, human rights, technology, and gender equity agencies.
-
Proposed / pending
Minneapolis robotaxi safety-monitor ordinance (proposed 2026)
Minneapolis, MN · Minneapolis City Council, proposed ordinance requiring human safety monitors in autonomous rideshare vehicles (Committee of the Whole 7-4, Sept. 29, 2026)
A proposed Minneapolis ordinance would require a human safety monitor in the driver's seat of driverless rideshare vehicles (robotaxis) such as Waymo and Zoox. The monitor would need a driver's license and would have to be paid at least minimum pay rates. The City Council's Committee of the Whole advanced it 7-4 on September 29, 2026, and a final council vote was set for October 1, 2026. Mayor Jacob Frey has called it a 'back-door ban' and is expected to veto it; if passed, it would not take effect until October 2027.
-
Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B24-0558)
Washington, DC · B24-0558 (DC Council, 2021; reintroduced)
DC's Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act would bar algorithmic decision-making that discriminates in housing, employment, education, credit, healthcare, insurance. Mandates annual bias audits, consumer notice, disclosure; private right of action with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Pending across DC Council sessions since 2021.
-
Proposed / pending
NYC Int 1003-2024
New York, NY · NYC Int 1003-2024
NYC Int 1003-2024 would amend the admin code to create an AI working group at the Commission on Human Rights to study AI's impact on employment and AEDT effects on protected classes — complementing Local Law 144.
-
Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B25-0114)
Washington, DC · D.C. Council B25-0114 (proposed)
A DC Council bill that would ban using algorithms to discriminate based on race, sex, age, or disability in important life decisions such as employment, housing, credit, insurance, and education, and would require notice and audits.
-
Repealed / replaced
NYC LL144 (original draft)
New York City, NY · NYC Int. 1894-2020 (original) — narrowed before enactment as Local Law 144 of 2021
NYC's original Int. 1894-2020 draft was substantially broader than the enacted Local Law 144. The narrowed final version took effect January 1, 2023 (DCWP enforcement began July 5, 2023 after final rules) and is the most-cited city AI law globally — original-vs-enacted scope shift is studied widely.
-
Expired
DC Algorithm Bill (not enacted)
Washington, DC · D.C. Council B24-0558 (2021); B25-0114 (2023) (not enacted)
A proposed DC law that would ban businesses from using algorithms that discriminate based on protected traits in decisions about jobs, housing, credit, insurance, and education, and would require annual bias audits and consumer disclosures. Despite multiple introductions since 2021, it has never been enacted — DC residents rely on federal protections.