AI in hiring: what job seekers and employers should know

Many employers now use software to place job ads, sort applications, rank candidates or analyze recorded interviews. Some of it uses AI. For a job seeker, that means a system may shape whether a person ever reads your application. For an employer, it means a hiring decision can rest on a tool you did not build and may not fully understand. This page explains where AI shows up in hiring, what some current rules require, and what both sides can ask.

This is a general guide, not legal advice. Hiring rules differ by country, state and city.

The short answer: AI in hiring is regulated in some places, not banned. New York City requires a yearly independent bias audit and advance notice before employers use automated employment decision tools on candidates. Illinois bars employers from using AI in ways that discriminate and requires them to tell employees when they use it, on top of notice and consent before AI analyzes video interviews. California's anti-discrimination rules cover automated-decision systems. The EU AI Act lists AI used to recruit or select people as high-risk, with those rules applying from 2 December 2027. In every case, a person should stay accountable for the decision.

Where AI shows up in hiring

• Job ads: deciding who sees a vacancy.
• Screening: parsing CVs and filtering or ranking applications.
• Assessments: scoring tests, games or written answers.
• Interviews: analyzing recorded video or audio interviews.
• Scheduling and chat: answering candidate questions and booking interviews.

The EU AI Act uses almost the same list. Its Annex III names "AI systems intended to be used for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, in particular to place targeted job advertisements, to analyse and filter job applications, and to evaluate candidates" as high-risk (EU AI Act, Annex III, point 4(a)).

What some current rules require

New York City: Local Law 144

Employers and employment agencies in New York City that use an automated employment decision tool must have it subject to a bias audit within one year of its use, make information about the audit publicly available, and give candidates and employees certain notices. The city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection enforces the law and began enforcement on 5 July 2023; its guidance says notice must be given 10 business days before the tool is used (NYC DCWP, Automated Employment Decision Tools).

For the audit, data, notice and penalty rules in detail, see NYC Local Law 144 explained.

Illinois: Human Rights Act and AI Video Interview Act

For both Illinois laws in detail, see Illinois AI hiring laws.

Since 1 January 2026, the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for an employer to use AI that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes, or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes, in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discharge, discipline or the terms of employment. It is also a violation to fail to give employees notice that the employer is using AI for those purposes (Illinois Public Act 103-0804).

Separately, an employer that asks applicants for Illinois-based positions to record video interviews and uses AI to analyze them must, before the interview, notify each applicant that AI may be used, explain how the AI works and what general types of characteristics it uses, and obtain the applicant's consent. It may not use AI to evaluate applicants who have not consented. It may share the videos only with people whose expertise or technology is needed to evaluate the applicant, and must delete them within 30 days of an applicant's request. Employers that rely solely on AI analysis of video interviews to decide who gets an in-person interview must report race and ethnicity data on those applicants and on hires to the state each year (820 ILCS 42).

California: Civil Rights Council regulations

Regulations under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act took effect on 1 October 2025. The state's Civil Rights Department says they make clear that using an automated-decision system may violate California law if it harms applicants or employees based on protected characteristics, require employers to keep employment records, including automated-decision data, for at least four years, and affirm that assessments such as tests, questions or puzzle games that elicit information about a disability may be an unlawful medical inquiry (California Civil Rights Department). For the full detail, including the separate CPPA rules on automated decisionmaking technology, see California AI employment rules.

Colorado: replaced before it started

Colorado's 2024 AI law (SB 24-205) never took effect. In May 2026 the state repealed and reenacted it as SB 26-189 on automated decision-making technology, which covers decisions about employment among others. From 1 January 2027 it requires notice to people at the point of interaction, an explanation within 30 days after an adverse decision, and a right to ask for meaningful human review and reconsideration (Colorado General Assembly, SB26-189). Nothing under it applies yet.

For the signed act in detail, see Colorado SB 26-189 and employment.

Texas: intent-based rule

Texas's Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149) took effect on 1 January 2026. It bars developing or deploying an AI system with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class, says a disparate impact alone does not show that intent, and adds no hiring notice or audit duty (Texas Legislature, HB 149). For detail, see the Texas AI law and employment.

Maryland: facial recognition in interviews

Since 1 October 2020, a Maryland employer may not use a facial recognition service to create a facial template during an applicant's interview unless the applicant signs a plain-language waiver (Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. 3-717). For detail, see facial recognition in job interviews in Maryland.

European Union

• High-risk: recruitment and selection systems are listed in Annex III, point 4(a), which brings obligations for the companies that provide and deploy them (EU AI Act, Annex III). The Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, published in the Official Journal on 24 July 2026 (NI Assembly EU law tracker), moved the date these rules apply for employment and other Annex III areas to 2 December 2027 (European Commission).
• Telling workers: under Article 26(7), employers deploying a high-risk AI system at the workplace must inform workers' representatives and affected workers before putting it into service or use (EU AI Act, Article 26(7)).
• Explanations: Article 86 gives people affected by certain decisions based on high-risk AI output a right to clear and meaningful explanations, subject to its conditions and exceptions (EU AI Act, Article 86).
• Automated decisions: Article 22 of the GDPR gives people the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing which produces legal effects concerning them or similarly significantly affects them, with exceptions and safeguards (GDPR, Article 22).

See AI at work and workers' rights for the Act's other workplace provisions. Other places have their own rules, which this page does not summarize. In Great Britain, see indirect discrimination for when a screening rule applied to everyone can still be unlawful, and see also health questions before a job offer for the limit on what screening forms and chatbots may ask, and occupational requirements for when a filter on a protected characteristic can be lawful. For how US disability law applies to hiring tools, see AI and disabled workers.

Questions job seekers can ask

• Is any automated tool used to screen, rank or assess my application? At which step?
• What does it look at, and what does it ignore?
• Will a person review my application before it is rejected?
• Can I ask for another way to be assessed, for example if I need an adjustment for a disability?
• If my interview is recorded, who sees it, and can I ask for it to be deleted?

Where a rule like those above applies, some of these answers should come to you without asking.

Questions employers should ask before buying a tool

• Bias testing: has the tool been tested for different outcomes across groups, on data like ours, and will the vendor share the results? NIST lists fairness, with harmful bias managed, among the characteristics of trustworthy AI (NIST AI RMF 1.0).
• What it measures: does each input relate to the job, or is it a proxy for something else?
• Who decides: where does a person review the output, and can they overrule it? See human in the loop and accountability.
• Notice and records: which local rules apply, what must candidates be told, and what must be kept or deleted? In Great Britain, screening candidates against lists of union members or activists is covered by the ban on blacklisting, and job-finding and matching services have their own duties; see employment service-providers.
• Pay offers: in the EU, applicants have the right to the starting pay or its range and must not be asked about their pay history, so a tool that prices offers from current salary is a problem; see AI pay tools and pay transparency.
• Checking the output: spot-check rejected applications by hand. AI output can be confidently wrong; see checking AI output.

The digital collar view

Recruiters and HR teams are among the first office workers whose daily work now includes directing and checking AI systems. The skill that matters is not running the tool but knowing when its ranking is wrong, and keeping a person answerable for every decision. See will AI replace recruiters?, will AI replace HR?, AI monitoring at work and US federal discrimination law beyond hiring for what happens after hiring.