When employees leave a company, there is a heightened risk of data theft, including trade secrets or confidential business information. The risk is present whether an employee’s departure is voluntary or not and could cause damage to business operations and legal or regulatory consequences like data breach notifications.

Common reasons a departing employee may take corporate data:

• To secure a new job or compete with a former employer— A departing employee may use a company’s trade secrets or intellectual property to gain an advantage when seeking a new job or competing with their previous employer.
• For personal financial gain— A former employee might sell the stolen data or use it to launch their own business.
• To seek revenge— Disgruntled employees may intentionally sabotage their former company’s operations by destroying data in retaliation for how they were treated during their departure.
• By accident— Not all data theft is intentional; departing employees may mistakenly believe the data belongs to them or fail to properly erase business-related data from their devices.

Safeguarding Trade Secrets

Trade secrets generally refer to information that has commercial value because it’s kept secret, such as formulas, methods, programs, etc. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), businesses must demonstrate reasonable measures to protect these secrets. Reasonable safeguards include:

• Restricting access to sensitive data.
• Requiring confidentiality agreements.
• Regular employee data security training.
• Monitoring data access or downloads.

Failure to protect trade secrets may result in losing legal protections if such trade secrets are stolen. Companies should consult with trusted IT and legal advisors to ensure they have adequate safeguards.

Data Breach Concerns

Departing employees may also take personal information, e.g., employee data, which could trigger data breach obligations. This includes not only social security numbers, but financial, health and biometric data as well as online credentials and government IDs. Unauthorized access to such information may require notification to affected individuals and authorities.

Regulatory and Contractual Implications

Companies may face additional obligations such as SEC regulations for publicly traded companies if data theft is material, industry-specific reporting for sectors like healthcare or energy, and contractual obligations to notify affected parties if confidential data is compromised. Ignoring these can lead to fines, lawsuits, and reputational harm.

Key Takeaways for Employers

A proactive, comprehensive strategy minimizes legal exposure and business risks.

Assess stolen data to determine legal obligations (personal info, trade secrets, etc.).

Evaluate legal and regulatory requirements for notifications and disclosures.

Leverage contractual protections to address the theft.

Strengthen safeguards: Implement data protection measures, employee training, and enhanced exit procedures.

President Trump issued an executive order rescinding EO 14055 signed by President Biden in November 2021. This is familiar territory for President Trump, as he rescinded the same executive order on October 31, 2021. This issue has been debated back and forth in Washington D.C. for at least thirty years.

This is a bit of déjà vu for President Trump, as he rescinded the same executive order on October 31, 2021. Indeed, this issue has been going back and forth in Washington, D.C., for at least thirty years.

EO 14055 required contractors and subcontractors covered by federal service contracts to offer service employees covered under predecessor contracts the right of first refusal of employment in successor contracts. EO 14055 also required new contractors to recognize existing unions, and bargain with them to change any terms and conditions of employment.

With its revocation, federal contractors will be able to hire new employees without first offering the predecessor’s employees the right of first refusal. Moreover, federal contractors can now use the threat of losing a federal contract as a tactic to discourage workers’ organizing efforts.

The Trump administration offered no additional details about the rescission, nor did it say whether the Department of Labor will formally withdraw rules it published to implement the EO in December 2023. The rescission is only one among many actions expected from the incoming administration.

Federal agencies are still determining the best way to comply with this EO, so federal contractors should continue to closely monitor developments. We encourage contractors with questions about their obligations under current and future contracts to work with experienced counsel.

New York employers must provide notice to its employees regarding their right to be free from discrimination or retaliation based on the employees’ or their dependents’ reproductive health decision making.  New York employers that use employee handbooks are now required to include such a notice in their handbook.  This requirement stems from Labor Law § 203-e (the “Act”), which was enacted in November 2019, and follows the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision vacating of a lower court’s permanent injunction of the New York law requiring employers to include a notice in their employee handbooks regarding New York’s reproductive health decision making protections.

The Act requires employers to include in their handbooks a notice of employees’ rights and remedies under the Act and was enacted to “ensure that employees or their dependents are able to make their own reproductive health care decisions without incurring adverse employment consequences.”  Under the Act, employers may not “discriminate nor take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of or on the basis of the employee’s or dependent’s reproductive health decision making, including, but not limited to, a decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service.”  The Act also prohibits employers from “accessing an employee’s personal information regarding the employee’s or the employee’s dependent’s reproductive health decision making, including, but not limited to, the decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service, without the employee’s prior informed affirmative written consent.”  

The Act was challenged by three religious organizations who argued, among other things, that the notice requirement violated their First Amendment rights.  The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a permanent injunction in 2022 halting enforcement of the Act’s notice requirement, holding that the notice provision violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs (three religious organizations) by compelling them to publish a message that conflicted with their mission and was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. 

On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court’s reasoning and held that requiring employers that use a handbook to include a notice of employee rights and remedies under the Act did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.  In finding the notice requirement lawful, the Second Circuit stated that the notice requirement “is similar to many other state and federal laws requiring workplace disclosures” and that while “the policy judgment that motivated [§ 203-e] may be ‘controversial’ in the same way that the policy judgments underlying Title VII, or minimum wage laws, are controversial . . . the existence and contents of [§ 203-e] – and an employer’s obligation to comply with it – is not itself controversial.”  The Second Circuit noted that the notice requirement in no way restricts employers from otherwise communicating their moral, political, or religious views to their employees.

The statute does not establish a clear penalty for an employer’s non-compliance with the notice provision.  Nonetheless, New York employers should review and revise their employee handbooks to ensure compliance with this Second Circuit ruling. 

Beginning on April 15, 2025, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) will reinstate a monthly employment data reporting requirement for construction contractors, including details on the number of employees and work hours by race/ethnicity and gender.  Per this requirement, federal construction contractors will need to submit a report using the reinstated CC-257 Report by the 15th of each month.  The first report will cover the calendar month of March 2025 and is due April 15, 2025.

The report includes details on the number of employees and work hours by race/ethnicity and gender within each Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) or Economic Area (EA) each month.  Compiling and preparing data in accordance with this reporting requirement each month may prove challenging for contractors with employees working on multiple projects, either within a SMSA/EA or across several areas.  Contractors will also be required to include whether the work performed is designated by OFCCP as a Megaproject, whereby OFCCP plans to be involved with covered contractors and subcontractors at the outset of such Megaproject, including regular meetings between OFCCP, contractors, and other stakeholders.  Other CC-257 Report requirements include the federal contractor’s or subcontractor’s name, registered address, Employer Identification Number (EIN), Unique Entity ID (UEI) or Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, both of which OFCCP uses to identify entities doing business with the federal government, and a list of the federal agencies funding their projects.

Per the OFCCP’s FAQs, the OFCCP will use the monthly report to further its “mission of protecting workers in the construction trades, as employment discrimination continues to be a problem in the construction industry.”  Failure to provide timely reports may result in a violation and may subject contractors to sanctions, and failure to submit may be used as a factor for scheduling contractors for compliance reviews.

Although it is not clear whether the Trump Administration will maintain this new requirement, construction contractors should review and update their compliance programs and data reporting capabilities as necessary. 

Immediately following his January 20, 2025 inauguration, President Trump issued various executive orders with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives within the federal government.  Among these executive orders is a broad executive order tilted “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Order”), which among other things, rescinds Executive Order (“EO”) 11246.   

EO 11246, currently enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), was first issued in 1965 and prohibited federal contractors from discriminating against employees because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and required federal contractors, with at least 50 employees who do over $10,000 in government business in one year,  to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees were treated equally regardless of these characteristics. 

In addition to rescinding EO 11246, the Order states that OFCCP shall immediately cease “Promoting ‘diversity,’” “Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “‘affirmative action,’” and “Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sexual preference, religion or national origin.”  The Order also directs agency heads to “include in every contractor or grant award” a term requiring the contractor/grantee to “certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”  Further, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), with the assistance of the Attorney General, has been instructed, per the Order, to (1) to review all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance, (2) remove references to DEI and DEI principles from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and finance assistance procedures, and (3) terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.  Per the Order, the overarching goal is to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work, aligning employment practices more closely with merit-based principles.

Employers should review and update company policies regarding EO 11246 as necessary, while keeping in mind compliance with existing anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Employers and employees are often caught off guard by the devastation and uncertainty created by natural disasters.  When emergencies arise from such wildfires, global pandemics, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and flooding, employers are often faced with employment-related concerns, and it is imperative for employers to be as prepared as possible in the event an emergency arises.  This article touches on some of the most important concerns that employers should keep in mind if ever faced with a natural or other disaster, including (but not limited to) wage and hour implications, potential payroll relays, leaves of absence, notifying employees of mass layoffs, unemployment benefits, and safety and retaliation concerns, and modes of communication to employees.

Wage & hour implications:

• Under the FLSA, non-exempt workers must be paid only for the time they work, and therefore, employers need not compensate non-exempt employees who are not working because of an emergency.  Note that it generally does not matter whether the absence is based on the employer’s decision to close or the employee’s decision to stay at home or evacuate.  It is also important to note that non-exempt employees must be paid for performing any work remotely, even if the employee did not have express permission to work from home.  Accordingly, employers should ensure that they have a clear and enforceable time and attendance policy that, among other things, requires non-exempt employees to accurately record all time worked.
• On the other hand, when an employer shuts down its operations because of adverse weather or other disaster for less than a full workweek, exempt employees must be paid their full salary.  This rule also applies if exempt employees work only part of a day.  Keep in mind that if an employer deducts from the employee’s salary in such situations, it risks losing the exemption applicable to that employee.  Also note that, generally speaking, exempt employees may be required to use accrued leave or vacation time for their absences, including if the worksite is closed, and employers are able to direct exempt employees to take paid time off for the closure, pursuant to the employer’s established vacation or leave policy.  Employers should keep this in mind when updating and refreshing its vacation and leave policies.

Potential Payroll Delays:

• Sometimes a natural or other disaster can cause a delay in an employer’s processing of employees’ wage payments.  New York employers are required to give notice to employees for changes in their pay rate and/or payday.  Notice of any delays should be made in writing as soon as practicable. 
• This is often an unintentional result of a natural of other disaster, but employers should ensure that they keep open and ongoing communications with its employees about wages, scheduling, and related matters.

Leaves of Absence:

• Employees may need to take leave from work to deal with certain unforeseen circumstances that a natural disaster could cause.  Generally speaking, the FMLA does not, in itself, require employers to give employees time off to attend to personal matters arising out of a natural disaster, but, employees who have suffered a serious injury or illness resulting from the disaster, or who have a family member who did, may be entitled to leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Notifying Employees of Mass Layoffs:

• Employers that decide to close a facility or implement a mass layoff due to the effects of a natural disaster must evaluate whether a notice is required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).
• The WARN Act requires a covered employer, i.e., 100 or more employees, to give 60 days’ notice prior to a mass layoff.  A mass layoff occurs when either of the following suffers a job loss: (a) 500 or more full-time employees at a facility; or (b) 50 or more full-time employees at a facility constituting at least 33% of the workforce.  A job loss includes a layoff of six months or more but does not include resignations or terminations for cause.
• When required, WARN notice must be provided to affected nonunion employees, the representatives of affected unionized employees, the state’s dislocated worker unit, and the local government where the closing or layoff is to occur.
• Note that a natural or other disaster is not considered a justifiable delay in providing WARN notice, and if necessary, they must give “as much notice as is practicable” and must state why they were unable to give notice earlier. 

Unemployment Benefits:

• Employees who are displaced from their positions due to a natural or other disaster may be eligible for unemployment compensation from the relevant state agency, and if ineligible for state assistance, the employee may be eligible for such Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA).

Safety & Retaliation Concerns:

• Under the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers have a legal duty at all times to provide employees with a safe workplace, free of known health and safety hazards, and depending on the business, additional industry-specific regulations may apply.  Employers should conduct a workplace safety analysis to consider any and all post-disaster recovery issues.  Note that OSHA publishes fact sheets on disaster recovery which addresses topics such as flood and cleanup hazards, fungi, falls, chainsaws, asbestos, and electrical wires.

Communicating to Employees:

• Employers should establish a command center to serve as the central source for decision-making and communication and should also consider having a second alternative location in the case of a widespread event if possible.
• Employers should ensure that employee contact information is up-to-date and that employees know how to get information from the employer in an emergency.  This could include distributing relevant information in advance of inclement weather or other catastrophic event for employees to store at home, such as information about company policies and general preparedness, and ensure that there are sufficient modes of satisfaction for contact, such as an email or text alert system.

If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.

In Separ v. Cnty of Nassau, the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York held that a settlement agreement could not take effect without a signed confidentiality and non-disparagement preference acknowledgement.  The case dealt with an employer and employee who had entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the plaintiff employee’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation.  The settlement agreement contained an “effective date” clause which stated that the settlement agreement would not take effect until it was executed by the parties, and also contained a “review and revocation” clause that provided the employee the required consideration and revocation periods under New York General Obligations Law § 5-336 and N.Y. CPLR § 5003-B.  Specifically, Section 5-336 of the NYGOL prohibits employers from including non-disclosure language in a settlement agreement unless the “condition of confidentiality is the complainant’s preference” and the complainant has 21 days to consider the agreement and 7 days to revoke.  N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5003-B prohibits a condition of confidentiality in a settlement agreement reached in response to a filed complaint unless such a condition is the plaintiff’s preference.  Notably, the statutes provide a mechanism for the complainant to acknowledge their preference for confidentiality via a separate acknowledgment form.

The parties in Separ agreed on the terms of the settlement, and the employee executed the settlement agreement within the 21-day consideration period.  However, the employee refused to sign the confidentiality and non-disparagement preference acknowledgement form, which was provided via a separate acknowledgment form, per CPLR § 5003-B.  The employer filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that the confidentiality and non-disparagement preference acknowledgement form was “separate and apart from the settlement agreement.”  However, the court rejected this argument and instead held this is a “material component of the broader settlement agreement,” and therefore the settlement agreement could not take effect without the signed confidentiality and non-disparagement preference acknowledgement.  This decision highlights the fact that even intentional and near-perfect adherence to both NYGOL § 5-336 and CPLR § 5003-B may still render a settlement agreement unenforceable if the employee refuses to sign a confidentiality and non-disparagement acknowledgement.  Employers should ensure that they review their settlement agreement templates to ensure that each and every “material component” of the entire settlement agreement is fully executed to ensure enforceability. If you have any questions about the subject of this article and its implications for your business, please contact Forework.

On January 9, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights issued guidance stating that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) applies to AI-powered decision-making in hiring and beyond. Thus, AI-driven bias constitutes illegal discrimination.

New Jersey also launched a Civil Rights Innovation Lab to monitor AI compliance, enforce violations, and educate businesses on AI risks. New Jersey employers using AI-driven tools must now proactively ensure these systems don’t create discriminatory outcomes. 

AI Bias is Illegal under the LAD

 The LAD’s broad purpose is to eliminate discrimination, and it doesn’t distinguish between the mechanisms used to discriminate. “Automated decision-making tool” refers to any technological tool, including but not limited to, a software tool, system, or process that is used to automate all or part of the human decision-making process. The guidance makes clear that under the LAD, discrimination is prohibited regardless of whether it is caused by automated decision-making tools or human actions. If an AI system results in biased outcomes, the employer will be held responsible.

The guidance emphasizes that employers cannot escape liability by outsourcing AI hiring, screening, or evaluation tools. Thus, employers cannot point to third-party vendors if a bad outcome occurs and a lawsuit follows. If an AI tool used by an employer leads to disparate impact or direct discrimination, the guidance says that the employer is still legally responsible.  

Civil Rights Innovation Lab

The guidance announced the creation of New Jersey’s Civil Rights Innovation Lab. This new government agency will:

• Develop AI tools to detect discrimination in hiring, housing, and credit.
• Enhance enforcement of AI-related discrimination complaints.
• Offer compliance training to businesses on AI risk management.

Evolving Regulatory Landscape

New Jersey’s guidance is one of many states issuing increased regulation of AI in the context of employment decisions.

• New York City’s Local Law 144 was the nation’s first law to create obligations for employers when AI is used for employment purposes – including obligatory bias audits.
• Colorado was the first state to pass a law requiring AI bias prevention measures.
• Illinois became the second state to pass AI workplace legislation that will require employers to provide notice to applicants and workers if they use AI for hiring, discipline, discharge, or other workplace-related purposes.
• Several other states– including Texas and Connecticut – have pending AI bias legislation for 2025.

Next Steps for Employers

Employers can take steps to identify and eliminate bias in its automated decision-making tools, such as:

• implementing quality control measures for any data used in designing, training, and deploying the tool;
• conducting impact assessments;
• having pre-and post-deployment bias audits performed by independent parties;
• providing notice of their use of an automated decision making tool;
• involving people impacted by their use of a tool in the development of the tool; and
• purposely attacking the tools to search for flaws;
• train HR teams on AI compliance; and
• monitor enforcement trends in anticipation of regulatory shifts.

If you have any questions regarding automated decision-making tools in the workplace, please feel free to reach out to any member of Forework.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump enacted several executive orders to advance his administration’s immigration policy priorities. These actions include: (a) a declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, (b) facilitating the allocation of federal funds for enhanced border security and (c) deploying armed forces to the region. Additionally, President Trump announced plans for a large-scale deportation initiative targeting undocumented immigrants, described as “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”

On January 21, 2025, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive overturning the previous administration’s policy of limiting immigration enforcement near “protected areas.” This change grants ICE agents broader authority to conduct enforcement activities in sensitive locations, including hospitals, schools, and religious institutions.  Indeed, a Crain’s article last week discussed how New York City area hospitals are preparing for ICE raids. 

Understanding ICE Raids

ICE raids typically aim to detain undocumented employees working for U.S. employers. These operations are often targeted, focusing on specific individuals or industries known to employ large numbers of undocumented workers, such as hospitality, construction, agriculture, cleaning services, and restaurants.

ICE agents may enter public areas of a business, such as lobbies or parking lots, without prior notice. However, access to non-public areas requires either a judicial search warrant or explicit consent from the employer. While employers are obligated to cooperate with ICE investigations, they must also ensure compliance with privacy laws and avoid inadvertently violating employee rights during such operations.

Preparing for Potential ICE Raids

Employers can take proactive measures to minimize risks and ensure compliance with immigration laws. Consider the following steps:

1. Designate a Point of Contact: Assign a representative from the Human Resources or Legal Department to manage ICE-related matters.
2. Develop Protocols: Establish clear procedures for handling ICE raids, including training for designated representatives on managing judicial search warrants, communicating with agents, and addressing employee concerns.
3. Front Desk Preparedness: Equip reception staff or other first points of contact with guidelines on who to notify and how to respond to ICE agents.
4. Internal Audits:
   • Review and update Form I-9 records for all active employees.
   • Correct any errors on I-9s promptly.
   • Retain I-9 records for the legally required period for terminated employees.
5. E-Verify Compliance:
   • Audit E-Verify cases for accuracy.
   • Address any missing cases and ensure mandatory posters are displayed.
6. Document Organization:
   • Align immigration petition documents with personnel files, ensuring consistency in details such as compensation and work locations.
   • Separate personnel, I-9, and immigration files, removing any unnecessary or sensitive personal data while adhering to state laws governing personnel records.
7. Vendor and Contractor Reviews:
   • Confirm that contracts with staffing agencies or vendors include clauses ensuring compliance with I-9 and immigration laws.
8. Managerial Awareness:
   • Instruct supervisors not to provide legal advice to employees or customers regarding immigration issues. Instead, provide informational materials from reputable organizations like the National Immigration Law Center.
9. Media Preparedness:
   • Draft a statement for use in the event of an ICE raid to address concerns from employees and the media.
10. Legal Support:

• Consult with an immigration attorney to develop protocols and provide training for key personnel.

Broader Implications for Employers

The administration’s enforcement efforts may initially target undocumented immigrants with criminal records or those at the southern border. However, additional executive actions could affect individuals under programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and humanitarian parole programs. Employers should also prepare for potential DHS site visits to audit immigration-related files.

Organizations serving the public, such as hospitals, schools, and religious entities, are generally not required to disclose the immigration status of individuals unless mandated by a lawful warrant. However, employers must avoid actions that could be interpreted as obstructing government operations.

By taking these proactive steps, employers can better navigate the challenges posed by heightened immigration enforcement while maintaining compliance and protecting their workforce.

In the absence of federal regulations, several states have passed or are considering legislation aimed at mitigating the risk of an employer’s use of AI systems resulting in algorithmic discrimination.

“Algorithmic discrimination” is defined as the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system that results in differential treatment or impact disfavoring an individual based on protected characteristics (e.g., age, color, ethnicity, disability, national origin, race, religion, veteran status, sex, etc.). AI systems have the potential to create discriminatory results in decision making.  And such discrimination is particularly harmful in the context of employers that use AI systems to make employment decisions.

Enacted and Proposed Legislation

While President Biden released an executive order on the development and use of AI, there is no comprehensive federal regulation regarding the use of AI systems, especially in the context of employment decision making. Several states have enacted or proposed legislations to impose a duty of reasonable care on employers to mitigate and assess the risk of algorithmic discrimination caused by their use of AI systems.

• Colorado: Senate Bill 24-205: The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act will take effect on February 1, 2026, and adopts a risk-based approach to AI regulation similar to the European Union’s AI Act.
• Illinois’ House Bill 3773: Amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination from, and require transparency about, the use of AI in employment-related decisions.
  
  
• California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA):In November 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency released draft regulations on the use of AI and automated decision-making technology, which were promulgated under the California Consumer Privacy Act.       
  
  
• The California Civil Rights Department (CRD): Under the proposed rules, employers that use AI in their hiring or employment practices would not be able to use a system that screens out, ranks or prioritizes applicants based on their religious creeds, disabilities or medical conditions unless the factors are job-related.           
  
  
• Texas’ 88(R) HB 1709:If passed, the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act would establish obligations for developers, deployers, and distributors of “high-risk AI systems.” The proposal adopts a risk-based approach to AI regulation like the European Union’s AI Act. “High risk” systems include those used in consequential decisions, such as employment, healthcare, financial services, and criminal justice.

New York City: Local Law 144 (LL 144)

• Effective Date: July 5, 2023.
• Scope: Prohibits the use of Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDTs) unless a bias audit is conducted and specific notices are provided.
• Notice Requirements:
  • Employers must notify applicants that an AEDT will be used.
  • Notice must include information on how to request reasonable accommodations.
  • For NYC applicants, notice must be provided at least 10 business days before use, including a description of job qualifications assessed by the AEDT.

• Bias Audits:
  • Employers must conduct an audit to check for bias against protected groups (race/ethnicity, sex) before using an AEDT.
  • The audit must be performed by an independent third party and repeated annually.
  • Results of the audit must be publicly available.
• Applicability:
  • Applies to employers and employment agencies using AEDTs in NYC, including jobs based in NYC, remote jobs with a NYC office, or agencies located in NYC.
• Penalties for Non-Compliance:
  • $500 fine for the first violation.
  • Fines of up to $1,500 for subsequent violations.

What’s Next for Employers?

The Trump administration is unlikely to make a major impact on regulation AI because most AI regulatory efforts are occurring at the state level and local level. It is likely that we will see an uptick in AI regulations in democratic-led states.

Employers that use or are considering using AI to make employment decisions are advised to stay up to date on current legislations and prioritize transparency measures and proactive audits to manage the risk of bias in AI tools.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding use of AI systems for employment decision making, please feel free to contact any member of the Poricanin Law team.