Recruiting & Hiring

Subscribe to Recruiting & Hiring

In Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, the California Supreme Court expanded the definition of an “employer” under the state’s discrimination statute to include certain third-party business entities that perform employment-related functions on behalf of employers. These agents may now be deemed “employers” such that they can be directly liable for employment discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for certain activities that they carry out on behalf of employers.

Overview of Raines

The Raines‘ plaintiffs were job applicants who received offers of employment that were conditioned on the successful completion of pre-employment medical screenings conducted by a third-party company that used automated decision-making. Plaintiffs alleged that the screening form contained intrusive questions regarding their medical history that violated FEHA. They brought claims against their employers, as well as the third-party provider that conducted the medical screening. The question for the Court was whether business entities acting as agents of an employer, can be considered “employers” under FEHA and held directly liable for FEHA violations caused by their actions.

The Court examined the plain language in FEHA’s definition of “employer” and concluded that the definition did indeed encompass third-party corporate agents like the medical provider in his case. FEHA defines an employer as “any person regularly employing five or more persons, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly.” Here, the Court reasoned, recognizing the medical provider as an agent of the employer extended liability to the company most directly responsible for the FEHA violation.Continue Reading Automated Decision-Making and AI: California Expands FEHA Liability to Include Third-Party Business Agents of Employers

Special thanks to our Baker McKenzie speakers Danielle Benecke and Ben Allgrove, and Industry Experts Ashley Pantuliano, Associate General Counsel, OpenAI, Julian Tsisin, Global Legal & Compliance Technology, Meta, Janel Thamkul, Deputy General Counsel, Anthropic, and Suneil Thomas, Managing Counsel, Google Cloud AI.

Baker McKenzie is pleased to invite you to an…

Effective September 17, employers with four or more employees in New York state must include a compensation range in all advertisements for new jobs, promotions and transfer opportunities. A pay transparency fact sheet and FAQ document are available on the NYSDOL website with additional information and guidance on the new law. 

Overlap and City

…

New York may soon restrict employers and employment agencies from using fully-automated decision making tools to screen job candidates or make other employment decisions that impact the compensation, benefits, work schedule, performance evaluations, or other terms of employment of employees or independent contractors. Draft Senate Bill 7623, introduced August 4, aims to limit the use of such tools and requires human oversight of certain final decisions regarding hiring, promotion, termination, disciplinary, or compensation decisions. Senate Bill 7623 also significantly regulates the use of certain workplace monitoring technologies, going beyond the notice requirements for workplace monitoring operative in New York since May 2022 and introducing data minimization and proportionality requirements that are becoming increasingly common in US state privacy laws.

While there is not yet a federal law focused on AI (the Biden administration and federal agencies have issued guidance documents on AI use and are actively studying the issue), a number of cities and states have introduced bills or resolutions relating to AI in the workplace. These state and local efforts are all at different stages of the legislative process, with some paving the path for others. For example, New York City’s Local Law 144 took effect on July 5, prohibiting employers and employment agencies from using certain automated employment decision tools unless the tools have undergone a bias audit within one year of the use of the tools, information about the bias audit is publicly available, and certain notices have been provided to employees or job candidates (read more here).

If enacted, Senate Bill 7623 would take things much further. Here are some of the most significant implications of the draft legislation:Continue Reading Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself: New York and Other States Have Big Plans For Employer Use of AI and Other Workplace Monitoring Tools

While the US Supreme Court’s June 27 decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina does not directly apply to private employers, the decision will reverberate and impact corporate ID&E programs as a practical matter.

The Decision Ends Systematic Consideration of Race in the Admissions Process

Striking down the affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC, the Court ruled that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so doing, the Court effectively overturned the 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which it said race could be considered as a factor in the admissions process because universities had a compelling interest in maintaining diverse campuses.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas called the programs “rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in the entering classes.” Both policies “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our nation’s equality ideal,” he added.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court’s first Black female justice, said: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”Continue Reading ID&E in the Workplace After the Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action in Higher Education

With thanks to Mirjam de Blécourt and Danielle Pinedo for this update.

On June 12, after lengthy negotiations, the EU Council agreed on the proposal for a directive that aims to better protect platform workers. This opens the door to negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament on the final directive.

The directive aims to ensure that platform workers have or can obtain the appropriate employment status through the introduction of a legal presumption. In addition, the directive provides for rules regarding the transparency of the use of algorithms within the platform economy.Continue Reading The European Council Takes on Misclassification of Platform Workers

With special thanks to co-presenters Pamela Mafuz and Tony Haque.

In our latest Global Immigration and Mobility Video chat, our on-the-ground immigration and mobility attorneys explore the impact of geopolitical changes to immigration and mobility of employees in the EMEA region. 

Click here to watch the video.

Just after the fireworks’ finale, New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection will begin enforcing its new ordinance regulating the use of automation and artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The DCWP recently issued a Notice of Adoption of Final Rule establishing that enforcement efforts will begin July 5, 2023.

Here are three reasons this matters

  1. The new law requires time-sensitive, significant actions (read: audits, notices and public reporting) from employers using automated employment decisions tools to avoid civil penalties;
  2. Company compliance will require a cross-functional response immediately, so it’s time to get your ducks in a row; and
  3. Since the City’s law is (mostly) first-of-its-kind, it is likely a harbinger of things to come for employers across the country and it could be used as a framework in other cities and states.

The law in a nutshell

Local Law 144 prohibits employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool unless the tool has been subject to a bias audit within one year of the use of the tool, information about the bias audit is publicly available, and certain notices have been provided to employees or job candidates. Violations of the provisions of the law are subject to a civil penalty.Continue Reading Enforcement of New York City’s Artificial Intelligence Rule Begins July 5, 2023: Here’s What Employers Need to Know

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) has released new guidance for employers on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in employment, this time with a focus on adverse impact under Title VII. On May 18, 2023, the EEOC released “Select Issues: Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection…

This summer the US Supreme Court will rule on the legality of using race as an affirmative action measure in admissions at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina. The legal framework for evaluating affirmative action programs in higher education is definitively different than for inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) programs in the employment context. Notwithstanding this distinction, the decision will signal how courts review workplace ID&E practices and policies, and may encourage legal challenges regarding the same.

The timing of this case coincides with a growing trend of state and local legislation seeking to restrict workplace ID&E efforts, increasing claims of reverse discrimination, continued shareholder action in the ID&E space, including some actions challenging the devotion of resources to ID&E as not in the interest of shareholders, and attacks on laws mandating diversity on corporate boards.

Case Background

In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (a nonprofit group of “students, parents and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional”) sued both Harvard and UNC in federal court alleging that race-conscious admissions programs are unlawful. Both universities won at the trial court level. Now, SFFA has asked the Supreme Court to overrule its prior decisions and hold that the consideration of race as part of a holistic college admissions process in order to achieve a diverse student body violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.Continue Reading How the Supreme Court’s Upcoming Affirmative Action Decision May Impact US Employers