Recruiting & Hiring

Subscribe to Recruiting & Hiring via RSS

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

Special thanks to co-authors Eunkyung Kim Shin and Alexandre Lamy.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a new fact sheet reminding employers of how to simultaneously comply with export control regulations and avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination provisions contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The new fact sheet aligns with recent…

Special thanks to co-presenter, Jennifer Bernardo.

With a surge in layoffs taking place over the past year, many of those originally hired to diversify the workplace have been impacted, and studies show that inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) professionals have been affected by layoffs at a higher rate than others. The harm? Other than…

California legislators met on April 11, 2023 to discuss a proposed overhaul of employment-related criminal background checks. Simply put, if the Fair Chance Act of 2023 (SB 809) is passed into law, California will have the most restrictive criminal background check law in the country, and will significantly limit the way California employers can vet applicants for employment. Under existing state law, California employers may conduct a criminal background check for most positions only after making an initial offer of employment, and they may make adverse employment decisions based on criminal history only after conducting an individualized assessment that considers the nature of the offense and the duties of the job. While these existing restrictions are significant in their own right, the proposed new law will effectively eliminate criminal history consideration in most circumstances, allowing legislators to further reduce barriers to employment for people with criminal histories.

The Fair Chance Act will, among other things, “make it an unlawful employment practice to take adverse action against an employee or discriminate against an employee in the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment based on their arrest or conviction history.” SB 809. In essence, the proposed law will all but ban employment-related criminal background checks, except for positions for which such checks are authorized or required by statute. And in the limited circumstances where criminal history checks are permitted, the Fair Chance Act will require employers to post a clear and conspicuous notice informing applicants and employees of their rights. The new law also will impose on employers additional document and data retention obligations for completed background checks.Continue Reading California Seeks to Ban Most Criminal Background Checks

The New York City Council is already considering an expansion to the City’s pay transparency law to require NYC employers to include a description of non-salary or non-wage compensation in job postings. Dramatically increasing the burden on employers, the proposed ordinance would require a description of “bonuses, benefits, stocks, bonds, options and equity or ownership, if any.”

Background

As discussed here, New York City’s pay transparency law (Local Law 32 and its amendment), went into effect on November 1, 2022, and requires NYC employers with four or more employees to disclose in job postings – including those for promotion or transfer opportunities – the minimum and maximum salary offered for any position located within New York City. This range may extend from the lowest to the highest salary that the employer in good faith believes at the time of the posting it would pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity.

Update

On February 2, 2023, the Council introduced Int. No. 907, a local law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, broadening the information that must be disclosed in job postings.Continue Reading Proposed Expansion of NYC’s Pay Transparency Law Includes Bonuses, Equity Awards and Other “Non-Wage Compensation”

Special thanks to Maura Ann McBreen.

The short answer is “no.”

Typically the enforceability of non-compete clauses has been subject to state law and more recently, many states have imposed limitations on the enforceability of non-competes. Some states, like California, North Dakota and Oklahoma, ban them entirely. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on January 5, 2023 issued a proposed rule that would significantly restrict the use of non-compete clauses between employers and employees as a matter of federal law. The FTC said that the proposed rule would apply to independent contractors and anyone who works for an employer, whether paid or unpaid. It would also generally prohibit employers from using non-compete clauses and make it illegal for an employer to:

  • Enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete with a worker;
  • Maintain a non-compete;
  • Represent to a worker that he or she is subject to a non-compete under certain circumstances.

The proposed rule would generally not apply to other types of employment restrictions, like non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements, unless such other employment restrictions were so broad as to function like non-competes. Since this function test is clearly open to interpretation, the reach of the proposed rule may be further expanded.Continue Reading My Company Requires Employees Sign Non-competes. Should We Panic Due To The FTC’s Proposed Rule?

The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) has granted New York City employers a happy holiday, indeed. The Department just announced it will delay the enforcement of its automated employment decision tools law (Local Law 144 of 2021) until April 15, 2023, and is planning a second public hearing…

Special thanks to Bradford Newman and Stephen J. Malone, Fox Corporation.

Companies are turning to artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in recruiting and hiring the best talent in this tight labor market. However, there’s substantial corporate oversight in assessing AI threats, while agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the US are closely…