Not yet human-reviewed
This source record was written automatically by the research pipeline and has not yet been reviewed by the maintainer or integrated into a topic page. Treat it as a provisional summary and verify claims against the original source.
AI and Automated Decision-making Systems in Employment: A Look at State General Statutes Addressing of Bias Audits, Transparency, and Legal Accountability in the US
Citation. Burgess, B. & Cates, S. (2026). AI and Automated Decision-making Systems in Employment: A Look at State General Statutes Addressing of Bias Audits, Transparency, and Legal Accountability in the US. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research, 10(7).
Summary. This doctrinal legal review examines U.S. employment uses of AI and automated decision-making systems through bias, transparency, and accountability requirements. It compares federal guidance with selected state and local measures, including New York City Local Law 144, and argues that managers retain responsibility for discriminatory outcomes when using automated systems. The authors propose a Bias Notification Duty to complement audit requirements through reporting and organizational learning.
Key claims
- New York City Local Law 144 requires an independent bias audit within one year of use, public availability of audit information, and notices for automated employment decision tools used in hiring or promotion.
- The review characterizes U.S. AI-in-employment regulation as fragmented, with state and local measures varying in audit, impact-assessment, notification, oversight, and discrimination provisions.
- The authors argue that employers do not transfer accountability by delegating hiring, promotion, or termination decisions to algorithms and should embed auditing, communication, and ethical oversight across the system lifecycle.
- The proposed Bias Notification Duty is presented as a complement to bias audits that could make reported bias more visible and support continuous improvement, subject to privacy and data-protection safeguards.
Evidence & limitations
- Doctrinal legal review rather than an empirical evaluation of automated employment decision systems, audits, or organizational outcomes.
- Published in a peer-reviewed journal; legal and regulatory claims are time-sensitive, and the article’s descriptions of state measures should be checked against current primary legal sources before operational use.