EEOC and DOJ Release Expectations on Employers' Use of Technology, AI for Employment Decisions

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

For decades, employers have used technology to help decision-making, from hiring to performance bonuses. While seemingly taking human biases out of the equation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have voiced concerns over potential disability discrimination from the use of technology.

To help employers identify and avoid the potential pitfalls of using decision-making software, including artificial intelligence (AI), on May 12, 2022, the EEOC released a technical assistance document (TAD) about technology and disability discrimination. The EEOC's TAD is part of its Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative "to ensure that the use of software, including artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other emerging technologies used in hiring and other employment decisions comply with the federal civil rights laws that the EEOC enforces."

The DOJ also, on May 12, released a guidance that focuses on algorithms and AI in the hiring process.

While they do not create new or different legal obligations for employers, these documents provide insight on how these agencies view AI at work.


The EEOC's TAD applies the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including regulations and existing guidance, where technology intersects with workplace legal issues. The TAD addresses traditional recruiting and hiring tools, such as personality and cognitive assessments, as well as cutting edge technologies such as AI.

The TAD focuses on the three "most common ways that an employer's use of algorithmic decision-making tools could violate the ADA." According to the EEOC, these are:

  • The employer does not provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee or applicant with a disability to be rated "fairly and accurately";
  • The tool intentionally or unintentionally "screens out" individuals with disabilities; and
  • The tool violates the ADA's restrictions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations.

The TAD also provides what the EEOC calls "promising practices" for employers that may minimize the risk of claims, including:

  • Training staff to recognize and process requests for reasonable accommodations as quickly as possible.
  • Training staff to develop or obtain alternative means of rating job applicants and employees when the current evaluation process is inaccessible or otherwise unfairly disadvantages applicants or employees who have requested a reasonable accommodation because of a disability.
  • Working with outside parties who administer decision-making tools to ensure proper accommodations are provided.
  • Using algorithmic decision-making tools designed to be accessible to individuals with as many kinds of disabilities as possible.
  • Informing all job applicants and employees who are being rated that reasonable accommodations are available for individuals with disabilities.
  • Providing clear and accessible instructions for applicants and employees to request accommodations.
  • Describing in plain language and accessible formats the traits the tool is designed to assess, the assessment methods used, and the variables or factors that may affect the rating.
  • Ensuring that the algorithmic decision-making tools measure only abilities or qualifications that are "truly necessary" for the job, even for people who have on-the-job reasonable accommodations.
  • Ensuring that necessary abilities or qualifications are measured directly, rather than indirectly.
  • Confirm with vendors that tools do not ask questions likely to elicit information about a disability or seek information about an individual's physical or mental impairments or health, unless the inquiries relate to a request for reasonable accommodation.

While some of the "promising practices" are already utilized by employers, some of them arguably go beyond compliance and seek changes in practice that are not without potential drawbacks. For example, many companies do not detail the traits an assessment is measuring or the variables or factors that affect the rating. In addition, some assessments measure characteristics that are correlated with abilities and qualifications because it may be difficult or impossible to objectively measure abilities of applicants directly. Again, this technical assistance document does not have the force of law.


The DOJ guidance focuses on the hiring process, discusses how use of these technologies may screen out people with disabilities, and how to avoid potential discrimination. The DOJ recommends that employers test technologies they intend to use and consider reasonable accommodations they can provide.

Other Considerations

Employers should also be thoughtful of other potential discrimination claims. As the EEOC points out, employers and software vendors should take steps to ensure that algorithmic decision-making tools are appropriately vetted to prevent disparate impact discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act based on race, sex, national origin, color, or religion. But those steps are generally different from the ones needed to ensure compliance with the ADA given that the unique nature of every disability requires individual consideration. Decision-making tools that have been "validated" for some purposes, for example, still may inappropriately screen out an individual because of a disability.

Employers also should be mindful of data privacy issues arising from the collection of information necessary to apply the algorithms. In some states, employers may wish to discuss with counsel issues of notice, consent, acceptable use, disclosure, reasonable safeguards, and retention of this information.

The EEOC and DOJ are not alone in worrying about the use of AI and related technology in workplaces. In 2019, Illinois passed the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (AIVI Act), which imposes consent, transparency, and data destruction requirements on employers that implement AI technology during the job interview process. The first state law to regulate AI use in video interviews, the AIVI Act took effect January 1, 2020. In 2020, Maryland likewise enacted a law that requires notice and consent before use of facial recognition technology during a job interview. In 2021, New York City Council passed a measure that creates certain obligations for employers that use AI in hiring practices. Finally, more is on the horizon. California's Fair Employment and Housing Council is considering draft regulations regarding automated-decision systems in the workplace.


Technology-based decision-making tools are more accessible than ever, particularly as new technologies and applications emerge to drive businesses' response to marketplace demands and to serve the growing number of remote and hybrid workplaces. From sports and athletic organizations trying to improve athlete performance, to logistic companies striving to improve driver safety records, to driving efficiencies in the food service business, organizations in nearly all industries are wise to consider a myriad of legal issues potentially affecting every facet of recruiting and human capital management.

©2022 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Jackson Lewis P.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Deals Blow to California's Private Attorneys General Act

By Mia Farber Jackson Lewis P.C. June 15 , 2022

Bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (June 15, 2022).

Top Five Labor Law Developments for May 2022

By Jonathan J. Spitz Jackson Lewis P.C. June 15 , 2022

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel’s office issued a memorandum reiterating the rights of immigrant workers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Continuing its aggressive approach to expanding legal protections for workers and labor unions, the General Counsel’s office of the NLRB issued Memorandum OM 22-09, reiterating NLRB policy on workers’ rights to access the NLRB collective bargaining and remedial procedures regardless of immigration status, without fear of reprisals from their employers or the federal government.

Group Health Plan Considerations in the Face of (Potentially) Changing Abortion Laws

By Joy M. Napier-Joyce Jackson Lewis P.C. June 14 , 2022

On May 2, 2022, a draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health was leaked to the press, and as a result the Court is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, effectively leaving the issue of abortion rights to the states. Thirteen states currently have laws in place that will automatically ban at least some forms of abortion in their state if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and it is expected that thirteen or more additional states will quickly follow suit.

More From Litigation

Major Influencers Under the Loupe - Dutch Media Authority Publishes New Policy Rule Effective July 1

By Wouter van Wengen Greenberg Traurig June 23 , 2022

Success comes with a price. As of July 1, 2022, influencers with more than 500,000 followers (“Major Influencers”) will be under Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat van de Media) supervision due to a new Policy Rule. As such, Major Influencers will be required to comply with additional advertising rules from the Dutch Media Act (Mediawet). This GT Alert reviews the reason for the new Policy Rule (Beleidsregel kwalificatie commerciële mediadiensten op aanvraag 2022)1, the conditions to qualify as a Major Influencer, and the additional advertising rules and implications. 

NYDFS Becomes First US Financial Regulator to Issue Stablecoin Expectations to Virtual Currency Industry

By Michael A. Berlin Greenberg Traurig June 22 , 2022

On June 8, 2022, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a new Regulatory Guidance, setting foundational criterial for USD-backed stablecoins used by DFS-regulated entities. This represents the first U.S. state agency to regulate issuers of stablecoins. Generally, issuers that currently issue U.S.-dollar-backed stablecoins under DFS supervision are expected to come into compliance with the Regulatory Guidance within three months. This GT Alert summarizes the Regulatory Guidance.

The Responsible Financial Innovation Act: A Comprehensive Proposal to Regulate Digital Assets

By Tonya M. Esposito Greenberg Traurig June 22 , 2022

On June 7, 2022, U.S. Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA), a bill that would create the first comprehensive regulatory framework of digital assets in the United States.

Featured Stories