Workforce Bulletin

As we enter 2025, the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) presents both transformative opportunities and pressing legal challenges, particularly in the workplace. Employers must navigate an increasingly complex regulatory landscape to ensure compliance and avoid liability.  With several states proposing AI regulations that would impact hiring practices and other employment decisions, it is critical for employers to stay ahead of these developments.

New York      

New York’s proposed legislation, which if passed would become effective January 1, 2027, provides guardrails to New York employers implementing AI to assist in hiring, promoting, or making other decisions pertaining to employment opportunities.  Unlike New York City Local Law 144, which covers only certain employment decisions, the New York Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act (“NY AICPA”), A 768, takes a risk-based approach to AI regulation, much like that of Colorado’s SB 24-205.  The NY AICPA would specifically regulate all “consequential decisions” made by AI, including those having a “material legal or similarly significant effect” on any “employment or employment opportunity.” The bill imposes compliance obligations on “developers” and “deployers” of high-risk AI decision systems. 

On October 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s Opinion and Order in Mark C. Savignac and Julia Sheketoff v. Jones Day, et al., 19-cv-02443-RDM, addressed Title VII’s “participation clause,” in granting in part and denying in part, the law firm’s motion for summary judgment.

The court further denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, a married couple who were both formerly employed as attorneys (she resigned in 2018, he was terminated in 2019), alleged federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims based on their objections to Jones Day’s unequal parental leave policies. In the latter part of the opinion, the Court analyzed whether Savignac engaged in protected activity under the participation clause of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

In addition to prohibiting discrimination, Title VII’s provisions protect a covered individual from employer retaliation when the individual participates in an investigation or opposes covered unlawful conduct. These provisions—commonly referred to as the “participation clause” and “opposition clause”—are intended to encourage employees to report, and employers to address, discrimination in the workplace. 

On August 9, 2024, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed HB 3773 into law, amending the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to expressly regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for employment decisions. HB 3773 is the second Illinois law that regulates workplace AI.  As we previously reported, in August 2019, Illinois enacted the first of its kind statute, the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (AIVIA), which requires employers who use AI-enabled video interviewing technology to provide applicants advanced notice of the use of the AI, information regarding how the AI works and the characteristics evaluated, and obtain prior consent from applicants. And, while not necessarily directed exclusively at workplace AI tools, as we also previously reported, an employer’s use of AI-powered facial expression and screening technology could also implicate the requirements of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).  

HB 3773 has a potentially broader application than either AIVIA or BIPA.  HB 3773 provides two new definitions:

Artificial Intelligence                      

A machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments.

Artificial intelligence also includes generative artificial intelligence.

Generative Artificial Intelligence   

An automated computing system that, when prompted with human prompts, descriptions, or queries, can produce outputs that simulate human-produced content, including, but not limited to, the following:

A recent decision from the Northern District of Illinois highlights new legal hurdles for employers using AI-powered video interview technologies under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/15.  In Deyerler v. HireVue, initially filed over two years ago in January 2022, a class of plaintiffs alleged that HireVue’s AI-powered facial expression and screening technology violated BIPA.  According to the complaint, HireVue collected, used, disclosed, and profited from “biometric identifiers” without complying with the requirements of BIPA.  ...

As anticipated, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) has published proposed updates to its Equal Pay Transparency Rules (the “Updated EPT Rules”), which implement the Colorado legislature’s recent amendments (the “2024 Amendments”) to the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (the “Act”) that take effect January 1, 2024. Below, we identify four areas in which the Updated EPT Rules provide much-needed clarity to Colorado employers regarding their obligations under the 2024 Amendments.

Defined Terms

The Updated EPT Rules incorporate the 2024 ...

Governor Jared Polis recently signed into law legislation (SB 23-105 or the “Amendments”) that will soon change Colorado employers’ disclosure and notice requirements under the state’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (“Act”).

As we previously reported, in addition to prohibiting sex-based wage discrimination, the Act requires all employers, regardless of where they are located, with at least one Colorado-based employee to (1) notify their Colorado-based employees of internal opportunities for promotion and (2) disclose salary and benefits information in job postings for all positions that are or can be performed in Colorado. The Amendments modify the Act by:

California is one of a growing list of states requiring employers to make certain pay transparency disclosures to employees and applicants. California employers already had an obligation to provide pay scales to job applicants upon request; however, as we previously reported, under SB 1162, employers must now disclose pay scales to current employees upon request, and employers with 15 or more employees must include pay scales in job postings.

On May 14, 2021, the United States House of Representatives passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA” or “HR 1065”) for a second time.  With a vote of 315-101, including support from all House Democrats and 99 Republicans, the PWFA now awaits Senate consideration.

As previously reported, the House had originally passed the PWFA on September 14, 2020 (“HR 2694”).  While members of congress have introduced versions of the PWFA each term since 2012, last year was the first approval.  After HR 2694 passed the House last September, by a vote of 329-73, the Senate did not ...

As we previously reported, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected employers and employees across the globe.  Since the outbreak of COVID-19, governments have implemented measures to address the economic impact of the pandemic, including job retention schemes and promoting remote work.  Many employers have reconsidered the need for employees to return to the office at all.  In response, Barbados and Estonia have taken a dynamic approach to these changes and have introduced digital nomad visas that allow individuals to live in the country while they work for foreign employers.

Digital ...