iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Neither of the two most concrete rules in this area bans firing a worker with AI. New York City regulates automated tools used to screen job candidates and employees for promotion. Colorado’s 2026 law regulates automated decision-making used in consequential decisions, including employment, with its new provisions starting January 1, 2027. In New York City, agencies say existing worker and anti-discrimination protections still apply when technology shapes an outcome. Whether any of this helps you depends on where you worked, which decision the tool touched, and how much it influenced the result.
Separate the tool from the decision
“Fired by AI” can mean three different things: a system made the call, a system produced a score or recommendation that a manager relied on, or a system was one input among many. Legal rules treat these differently. Four questions sort most cases:
- What the system produced. The New York City definition covers outputs such as a score, classification or recommendation.
- How far it shaped the outcome. The New York City definition turns on whether the output substantially assists or replaces discretionary decision-making.
- Which decision it touched. Hiring, promotion and termination are not treated the same way under the New York City rule.
- Where you worked. Each rule has its own geography, which is why the jurisdiction question comes first in the steps at the end of this article.
New York City: a screening rule, not a dismissal rule
What counts as a covered tool
The New York City Administrative Code (Subchapter 25, Automated Employment Decision Tools) defines an automated employment decision tool as a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or AI. The process must issue a score, classification, recommendation or similar simplified output, and it must substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making in an employment decision affecting a person.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFor this subchapter, an employment decision means screening candidates for employment or screening employees for promotion within the city. Termination is not among the decisions the definition names. On the code’s wording, a dismissal on its own is therefore not what this rule regulates, even when software played a part in it.
#1 Best Overall
What covered employers must do
For a covered tool, the code requires the following:
- A bias audit conducted no more than one year before the tool is used.
- A public summary of the most recent audit results and the tool’s distribution date, available before use.
- Notice to candidates or employees, given 10 business days before the tool is used.
The city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) states that enforcement began July 5, 2023. The publicly hosted copy of the code carries a warning that its text may not reflect the newest legislation or rules, so check DCWP’s current Automated Employment Decision Tools pages alongside it.
Rank #2
Responsibility does not pass to the software
In an AI enforcement policy statement dated October 1, 2026, DCWP, the Taxi and Limousine Commission and the New York City Commission on Human Rights said businesses cannot avoid responsibility for violations of city law because they relied on AI, algorithms or other technology. The statement treats existing worker protections and the NYC Human Rights Law as applying to technology-influenced conduct. It is an enforcement position, not a new right to appeal every AI-influenced firing.
Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice Julie Su, in the city’s release, said: “A company that breaks the law is responsible for what its technology does, and the agencies that enforce our laws and this will hold violators accountable.” Christine Clark, Commissioner and Chair of the Commission on Human Rights, said in the same release: “Discrimination is illegal, whether that discrimination is committed by a person or an algorithm.”
Disability and accommodation
The Commission on Human Rights’ disability discrimination guidance says covered employers are responsible for the technology and AI they use, and cannot escape liability by attributing discrimination to an algorithm. Its specific examples concern application processes: failing to allow reasonable accommodation for using an application, or failing to offer an alternative application method, may violate the city’s human rights law. The guidance is most useful when a tool affected how a person with a disability applied or was assessed.
Colorado: a broader law with a January 1, 2027 start
Colorado’s SB 26-189 was enacted and signed on May 14, 2026, according to the General Assembly’s bill record. It covers automated decision technology: technology that processes personal data and uses computation to generate outputs that make, guide or assist decisions about individuals. Employment is one of the covered consequential-decision areas, so unlike New York City’s rule, it is not limited to screening for hiring and promotion. Whether a particular dismissal falls within it depends on the statute’s definitions and the implementing rules the Attorney General is writing.
SB 26-189 repealed and reenacted the earlier 2024 provisions with new requirements. Articles that describe the 2024 version as the framework going forward are out of date.
What the law gives workers
- Notice of the use of automated decision technology in a consequential decision.
- A right to request your personal data and to correct inaccurate data.
- A right to request meaningful human review and reconsideration after an adverse consequential decision.
The law also places documentation and record-retention duties on developers of these systems.
Enforcement and limits of the new rights
The Attorney General enforces the law through the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The law does not create a new private right of action, so a worker cannot sue under the new provisions themselves. The Attorney General has said rulemaking must be completed before the January 1, 2027 effective date. Check the Attorney General’s ADMT rulemaking page for the current stage, because the implementing rules will shape how these duties work in practice.
New York City and Colorado side by side
| Area | New York City | Colorado (SB 26-189) |
|---|---|---|
| Geography | City of New York | State of Colorado |
| Covered system | Automated employment decision tools that substantially assist or replace discretionary decisions | Automated decision technology that makes, guides or assists consequential decisions |
| Decisions covered | Screening candidates for employment and employees for promotion | Consequential decisions, including employment |
| Bias audit | Required, conducted no more than one year before use | Not stated in the official bill summary |
| Public disclosure | Summary of the latest audit and tool distribution date, available before use | Not stated in the official bill summary |
| Notice | Required before use | Notice duties included; timing not stated in the bill summary |
| Access and correction of personal data | Not among the duties the rule sets out | Right to request personal data and correct inaccurate data |
| Human review | Not among the duties the rule sets out | Right to request meaningful human review and reconsideration after an adverse consequential decision |
| Enforcement | DCWP for audit, posting and notice failures; Commission on Human Rights for discrimination and accommodation | Attorney General under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; no new private right of action |
| Timing | In force; enforcement began July 5, 2023 | Enacted May 14, 2026; new provisions effective January 1, 2027 |
What these rules do not settle
- No complete national picture. These two examples do not cover every state or city, and this article does not survey other jurisdictions.
- No universal human-review right. Among the rules discussed here, the right to human review appears only in Colorado’s SB 26-189, and only from January 1, 2027.
- No categorical ban. Neither example makes AI-assisted firing illegal in itself. Liability depends on whether a specific duty, such as an audit, notice or anti-discrimination obligation, was breached.
- No public count. The official texts and agency statements do not quantify how many workers have been fired with AI involvement, or how often these protections prevent unlawful decisions, so no reliable figure is available from them.
If you think AI was involved in your dismissal
These are general steps, not legal advice. The rules above determine which of them carry legal weight in your case.
Quick Recap
- Establish the jurisdiction. Note the city or state where you worked. New York City’s rules and Colorado’s law are separate instruments, and other places may have their own.
- Ask in writing what decided it. Ask whether an automated tool was used, what it measured, and who reviewed its output. A written request creates a dated record. Whether your employer must answer depends on the law that applies, so treat the reply as information rather than a guaranteed entitlement.
- Preserve your records. Keep the termination notice, performance reviews, job postings or application materials, emails or messages about the decision, any notice that a tool was used, and any accommodation requests. These are documentation habits, not a list of documents any statute requires your employer to produce.
- Raise disability issues separately. If a disability affected how you took part in an application or assessment process that involved a tool, raise it with your employer and, in New York City, consider the Commission on Human Rights’ disability guidance.
- Route the complaint to the right agency. In New York City, a suspected missing bias audit, public summary or notice goes to DCWP. Discrimination or accommodation concerns go to the Commission on Human Rights.
- Check Colorado timing. The new provisions take effect January 1, 2027. Confirm whether your decision falls on or after that date, and follow the Attorney General’s rulemaking page for the implementing rules.
- Involve an employment lawyer early. The rules summarized here do not set out complaint deadlines for these routes, so confirm time limits with the agency or a lawyer before you wait.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
