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
Yes. Employers can use automated tools to screen résumés, review online information, or analyze video interviews, and those tools can affect who advances. But a rejection alone does not show that AI was used—or that bias caused the decision. The clearest current legal requirements described here apply to covered automated employment decision tools used in New York City; federal nondiscrimination laws also apply to hiring decisions made with automated tools.
Can AI reject my job application?
An automated system can influence whether an application moves forward. Tools may scan résumés for keywords, examine an applicant’s online presence, or analyze video interviews for behaviors and mannerisms. Employers may use them to handle applications more efficiently, but their outputs can also reproduce existing bias, introduce new sources of bias, or make it harder for candidates to understand how they were assessed. These uses and risks are described in the New York State Comptroller’s December 2025 report, Enforcement of Local Law 144 – Automated Employment Decision Tools.
“Reject” does not always mean a system made the final decision. A tool might rank or filter candidates for a recruiter, while a person makes the next decision. Without information from the employer, applicants generally cannot infer from a rejection notice alone whether a tool was involved, what it did, or whether its use affected their outcome. The cited materials do not establish a reliable nationwide share of applicants screened by AI or a nationwide rate of discriminatory harm.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsHow can I find out whether a company uses AI to screen résumés?
Ask the recruiter or employer whether an automated tool is used and what stage of hiring it affects. You can also check the job posting, application instructions, and any screening or assessment notices for details about automated evaluation.
#1 Best Overall
In New York City, covered employers and employment agencies using a covered automated employment decision tool must notify candidates about its use, how it will be used, and the data collected. The latest bias-audit summary must also be made publicly available. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s AEDT overview describes these requirements. They are not a general notice rule for every employer or every software tool, so a lack of notice does not by itself establish that a company violated the law.
Does NYC require employers to disclose AI hiring tools?
For covered tools used in New York City, Local Law 144 requires an employer or employment agency to have a bias audit conducted no more than one year before using the tool, publish a summary of the most recent audit, and notify candidates about the tool’s use and collected data. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) administers the law.
The Comptroller’s December 2025 audit examined DCWP’s enforcement system from July 2023 through June 2025. It found that the agency had difficulty identifying non-compliance, particularly when employers did not disclose AI use or publish audits, and concluded that complaint handling and enforcement were inadequate. Those are findings about DCWP’s enforcement during the period examined—not proof that the law has no effect or that every employer failed to comply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Can AI hiring tools discriminate against me?
They can create or perpetuate discriminatory outcomes, but the evidence does not justify treating every tool as biased or assuming that any one applicant’s rejection was discriminatory. A bias audit, public notice, or vendor statement is not, by itself, proof that a tool is fair, valid for a particular job, or easy for an applicant to challenge.
Rank #3
What the NYC studies found—and what they did not establish
A 2024 FAccT paper by Groves, Metcalf, Kennedy, Vecchione, and Strait drew on qualitative interviews with 17 experts and practitioners. The authors raised concerns about unclear definitions and auditor independence under the NYC regime, difficulty obtaining employer and vendor data, and whether transparency alone can prevent biased systems from being used. These interview-based findings concern that regime; they are not direct measurements of every hiring tool.
A separate 2024 study, Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountability, reported that 155 student investigators examined 391 employers. Eighteen had published audit reports and 13 had published transparency notices. The authors caution that employers’ discretion in deciding whether a tool is covered means those observations alone do not prove legal non-compliance. The study also describes accessibility and usability problems for job seekers.
In a comment in NYC’s rulemaking record, a commenter reported tests of two personality-assessment systems, Crystal and Humantic AI. The commenter described outputs changing when job-irrelevant inputs varied, including résumé file format or profile source, and cited an audit of those systems. This is evidence attributed to the commenter about those systems and tests—not a regulator’s finding about AI hiring generally.
What a bias audit can tell you
An audit summary may offer information about the tool and outcomes examined, but the presence of an audit does not settle whether the tool measures what matters for a particular job. When reading an audit or notice, look for:
- The hiring stage affected and the job criteria the tool is meant to assess.
- Whether the document describes a bias audit, a validation study, or a vendor’s own claim.
- Which demographic groups and outcomes were actually examined.
- When the audit was conducted and whether it was independently conducted.
- Whether candidates can understand the notice and find accommodation or complaint channels.
What does the 80% rule say about hiring bias?
The EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines Q&A describes adverse impact as a substantially different selection rate that disadvantages members of a race, sex, or ethnic group. As a practical rule of thumb, a group’s selection rate below 80% of the highest group’s rate may indicate a substantially different rate. The EEOC explicitly says the four-fifths, or 80%, rule is not a legal definition.
For example, if the group with the highest selection rate has a rate of 50%, 80% of that rate is 40%. A rate below 40% for another group would fall below the rule-of-thumb threshold in this hypothetical comparison. That calculation is an indicator, not a ruling about an individual claim or proof that a tool caused discrimination. The EEOC guidance says that when a selection procedure adversely affects a protected group’s opportunities, employers should produce evidence that the procedure is valid for its use. A general claim that a tool is “validated” is not a substitute for evidence about the procedure as used.
What can I do if an automated hiring system screened me out?
- Ask what role automation played. Contact the recruiter or employer and ask whether an automated tool was used, which stage it affected, and what information it considered. If the job is in New York City and the tool is covered by Local Law 144, the employer has specified notice obligations.
- Keep a record. Save the job posting, application and assessment instructions, screening notices, application date, and relevant correspondence. A record can help clarify what happened if questions arise later.
- Raise an accessibility barrier. If an assessment presents a disability-related barrier, ask the employer about an accommodation or an alternative assessment process. Do not assume that every automated hiring process offers a general opt-out.
- Handle background-report errors through the right process. If a third-party background report appears inaccurate, follow the report-specific notice and dispute information. Background-check procedures are distinct from notices about automated hiring tools.
- Seek advice about a specific discrimination concern. Contact the relevant employment-rights agency or qualified counsel. The applicable route depends on the facts; the sources summarized here do not assess individual claims or filing deadlines.
How are automated hiring notices different from background-check rights?
Federal nondiscrimination laws still apply when employers use applicant background information to make employment decisions. Separately, when an employer obtains a background report from a third-party reporting business, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) procedures may apply. Those report-related procedures should not be confused with a general right to notice about any AI screening system. The EEOC’s Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know explains this distinction.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
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.
