
California employers have been urged to carefully review their hiring, recruitment, and employee assessment tools. Effective October 1, 2025, California will implement new regulations governing how employers use automated-decision systems (ADS) in hiring, promotion, and other workplace decisions.
These changes, issued under amendments to the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), place stricter requirements on employers that rely on artificial intelligence, algorithms, and other digital tools in employment practices. The regulations highlight the state’s growing concern about the potential for algorithmic discrimination and the risks of using technology without appropriate safeguards.
The rules define ADS broadly, covering nearly any technology that influences job opportunities or employment actions. These systems range from simple resume-screening tools to advanced AI platforms that evaluate applicant behavior. Examples include:
California’s regulators made it clear that when these systems skew results against protected groups, the employer is still responsible—even if the software is provided by a vendor.
Although marketed as objective, AI-driven hiring tools can magnify discrimination. For instance, reaction-time tests may disadvantage people with certain disabilities, while facial recognition systems often perform worse for individuals of color. Similarly, algorithms that direct ads may inadvertently exclude older workers or women from seeing job postings.
Because ADS can unintentionally embed prejudice, the amended FEHA rules hold employers accountable for identifying and preventing these outcomes.

The 2025 regulations impose several new obligations:
Artificial intelligence in hiring is often marketed as objective, yet studies and lawsuits reveal the opposite. For instance:
These cases show why California regulators are emphasizing safeguards: ADS can reinforce systemic inequalities instead of eliminating them.
These changes highlight a growing recognition that workplace technology, while efficient, is not always neutral. When algorithms disadvantage applicants or employees, the harm can be widespread and difficult to detect. California’s amendments give employees stronger protections and force employers to take proactive measures before relying on digital decision-making tools.
The Lyon Firm has extensive experience representing individuals harmed by unlawful workplace practices, including those linked to AI discrimination and automated hiring systems. We investigate whether employers or third-party vendors violated employment laws, build cases for accountability, and pursue fair outcomes for workers.
For businesses, we also provide proactive guidance to navigate complex regulations and limit liability. If you are a job applicant excluded by an unfair system or a current employee learning about your rights and California’s evolving laws, our firm delivers informed legal support tailored to your needs.
Can I sue Workday or HireVue for rejecting me? Potentially yes. Active lawsuits including Mobley v. Workday have survived motions to dismiss and are proceeding as class actions. If you were rejected by an employer using these platforms and believe the system discriminated based on a protected characteristic, you may have a claim against the employer, the AI vendor, or both.
Do I have to prove intentional discrimination to win an AI hiring case? No. Disparate impact claims allow plaintiffs to show that a neutral policy or tool produced discriminatory outcomes without proving intent. If an AI screening system disproportionately rejects candidates from a protected group and the employer cannot justify it as job-related, liability can follow.
What states have the strongest AI hiring protections? California, New York, and Colorado currently have the most comprehensive state-level protections against AI hiring discrimination. Federal law through Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA applies in all states.
How long do I have to file an AI discrimination claim? EEOC charges for federal employment discrimination claims must generally be filed within 180 to 300 days of the discriminatory act. Contact an attorney as soon as possible to avoid missing the deadline.
Taking the first step doesn’t have to be complicated. In just a few minutes, you can share the basics of your case, and our team will guide you from there: