HR & People Analytics AI Standard of Care

The workplace has become an AI laboratory, and employees are the test subjects. Beyond hiring algorithms that made early headlines, AI now pervades every aspect of employment: performance reviews scored by machine learning, productivity tracked by keystroke, schedules optimized by algorithm, and terminations triggered by automated systems. This “algorithmic management” revolution raises profound questions about the standard of care employers owe their workforce.

The legal framework is rapidly evolving. From California’s new workplace surveillance disclosure laws to the EEOC’s guidance on AI-driven performance evaluations, regulators are establishing that employers cannot hide behind algorithms to avoid employment law obligations. The duty of care extends to the AI systems employers deploy, and the human dignity those systems may erode.

The Algorithmic Management Revolution

#

Beyond Hiring: AI Throughout Employment

#

While AI hiring discrimination has received significant legal attention, the broader transformation of work through algorithmic management presents equally serious, and less understood, liability risks:

The Scale of Workplace Surveillance

#

Modern workplace AI surveillance has reached unprecedented levels:

• Keystroke logging tracks every typed character
• Screen monitoring captures work in real-time
• Mouse movement tracking measures “engagement”
• Email and chat analysis evaluates communication patterns
• Facial recognition monitors attention and emotion
• Location tracking follows warehouse and delivery workers
• Biometric monitoring measures stress, fatigue, heart rate

A 2024 survey found that 60% of companies with 500+ employees use some form of productivity monitoring software, up from 30% pre-pandemic.

Performance Evaluation AI: Legal Risks

#

Disparate Impact in AI Performance Reviews

#

AI-driven performance evaluation creates substantial disparate impact risks:

Training Data Problems:

• Historical reviews may embed supervisor bias
• AI learns to replicate discriminatory patterns
• “Objective” metrics may disadvantage protected groups

Metric Selection Issues:

• Speed metrics may disadvantage disabled workers
• Communication metrics may disadvantage non-native speakers
• Availability metrics may disadvantage caregivers (predominantly women)

EEOC Guidance on AI and Employment Decisions

#

The EEOC’s May 2023 technical assistance on AI and Title VII applies to performance evaluations:

“If an employer administers a selection procedure designed by an outside vendor, the employer remains responsible for ensuring that use of the procedure in the particular circumstances does not violate Title VII.”

This means:

• Employers cannot outsource compliance to AI vendors
• Adverse impact testing is required regardless of AI use
• Validation requirements apply to AI selection procedures
• Reasonable accommodation must be provided for AI assessments

The “Black Box” Evaluation Problem

#

When AI generates performance scores, employees face a fundamental fairness problem:

• They cannot understand what factors determined their score
• They cannot identify and correct errors
• They cannot challenge the methodology
• They may not even know AI was involved

Several courts have held that employees must receive meaningful notice and opportunity to respond before adverse employment actions. AI-generated scores that employees cannot understand or challenge may fail this standard.

Workplace Surveillance: Legal Boundaries

#

Federal Law Framework

#

Federal law provides limited protection against workplace surveillance:

Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA):

• Permits employer monitoring with notice
• “Business use” exception covers most workplace monitoring
• Consent (often buried in employee handbooks) typically suffices

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA):

• Surveillance of protected concerted activity may be unlawful
• AI systems monitoring union discussions raise NLRA concerns
• Recent NLRB guidance scrutinizes surveillance chilling effects

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

• AI surveillance that reveals or targets disabilities may violate ADA
• Productivity metrics must accommodate disabled workers
• Medical monitoring (stress, fatigue) may constitute prohibited inquiry

State Privacy Laws Emerging

#

States are increasingly regulating workplace AI surveillance:

California (AB 1651 - 2024):

• Requires advance notice of monitoring practices
• Mandates disclosure of data collected and purposes
• Prohibits monitoring in “personal” spaces
• Creates penalties for non-compliance

New York (Proposed):

• Would require disclosure of electronic monitoring to employees
• Notice 14 days before monitoring begins
• Annual disclosure to Attorney General

Connecticut, Delaware, Colorado:

• Various electronic monitoring disclosure requirements
• Trends toward increased transparency mandates

Privacy Torts and AI Surveillance

#

Beyond statutory claims, employees may bring common law privacy claims:

Courts have found that even at-will employees retain some reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace, particularly regarding:

• Personal communications
• Bathroom and changing areas
• Medical information
• Off-duty conduct

Algorithmic Scheduling: Predictability and Discrimination

#

The Rise of AI Scheduling

#

AI scheduling systems optimize labor costs by:

• Predicting demand with machine learning
• Assigning workers to meet predicted needs
• Minimizing labor costs through just-in-time scheduling
• Changing schedules with minimal notice

Fair Workweek Laws and AI

#

Over a dozen jurisdictions have enacted “fair workweek” or “predictive scheduling” laws that directly impact AI scheduling:

Key Requirements:

• Advance notice: 14 days (NYC, Chicago, Oregon)
• Predictability pay: Premium for schedule changes
• Right to rest: Minimum hours between shifts
• Access to hours: Existing workers offered before new hires
• Right to request: Flexible scheduling requests protected

Scheduling Discrimination Risks

#

AI scheduling algorithms create discrimination risks:

Caregiver Discrimination:

• Algorithms may learn to avoid workers with availability constraints
• Disproportionately affects women with childcare responsibilities
• May constitute disparate impact sex discrimination

Disability Discrimination:

• Schedule volatility may fail to accommodate disabilities
• Predictability needs for medical appointments
• ADA interactive process requirements

Religious Discrimination:

• AI may not accommodate religious observance needs
• Algorithms penalizing availability restrictions
• Title VII reasonable accommodation obligations

Automated Termination: Due Process Concerns

#

AI-Driven Firing

#

Some employers now use AI systems that can automatically trigger terminations based on:

• Productivity scores falling below thresholds
• Attendance metrics (including automated time tracking)
• Customer feedback analysis
• Safety compliance monitoring
• Route and delivery efficiency

The Amazon Warehouse Cases

#

Amazon’s automated termination systems have faced significant legal scrutiny:

Key Issues:

• Workers terminated by algorithm without human review
• Appeals handled by systems reviewing same data
• Inability to challenge metrics or methodology
• High termination rates in facilities

While Amazon has modified some practices in response to criticism, the cases illustrate the risks of fully automated adverse employment actions.

WARN Act and AI Layoffs

#

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requires 60 days’ notice before mass layoffs. When AI systems identify workers for termination:

• Do AI-selected terminations aggregate into a WARN event?
• Does gradual AI-driven attrition constitute a “plant closing”?
• How do employers track algorithmic termination patterns?

These questions remain largely untested in court.

Procedural Due Process in Private Employment

#

While constitutional due process applies only to government employers, several states have recognized implied contract or public policy claims when termination procedures are fundamentally unfair:

• Montana: Just cause requirement for all employees
• California: Strong public policy protections
• Various states: Implied contract claims based on handbook procedures

AI termination that provides no explanation or opportunity to respond may breach these protections.

Liability Framework for Employers

#

Direct Liability Theories

#

Employers face direct liability for AI employment decisions under:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

• Disparate treatment (intentional discrimination)
• Disparate impact (neutral practices with discriminatory effects)
• Retaliation for protected activity

ADA and ADEA:

• Disability discrimination in monitoring and metrics
• Age discrimination in AI-driven decisions
• Failure to provide reasonable accommodations

State Fair Employment Laws:

• Often broader than federal law
• Additional protected characteristics
• Stronger enforcement mechanisms

The Vendor Defense Fails

#

Employers frequently argue they relied on AI vendor assurances. Courts and regulators have consistently rejected this defense:

“Use of an algorithmic decision-making tool does not insulate an employer from liability.”, EEOC Technical Assistance (2023)

Employers must:

• Independently validate AI systems for bias
• Monitor outcomes for adverse impact
• Maintain ability to explain decisions
• Provide accommodation regardless of AI limitations

Contract and Warranty Claims

#

When AI vendors provide employment tools, contract claims may arise:

• Breach of warranty if AI doesn’t perform as promised
• Fraud if vendor misrepresented capabilities or testing
• Indemnification disputes over liability allocation
• Negligent misrepresentation regarding compliance

Regulatory Developments

#

EEOC Strategic Enforcement

#

The EEOC has identified AI and algorithmic fairness as a strategic enforcement priority:

Focus Areas:

• AI hiring and selection procedures
• Accommodation failures related to AI
• AI-driven harassment (hostile environment created by AI tools)
• Retaliation for challenging AI decisions

Recent Actions:

• $365,000 settlement with employer using biased AI screening (2024)
• Multiple charges filed against AI employment tool users
• Guidance documents on AI compliance

OSHA and AI Workplace Safety

#

OSHA is examining AI’s role in workplace safety:

Concerns:

• AI production pressure causing injuries
• Inadequate AI accommodation of human factors
• Surveillance stress as occupational hazard
• AI systems overriding safety judgment

NLRB Scrutiny of AI Surveillance

#

The National Labor Relations Board has increased scrutiny of AI surveillance:

• Surveillance chilling protected concerted activity
• AI monitoring of union discussions
• Algorithmic retaliation for organizing
• Social media monitoring policies

A 2023 NLRB General Counsel memo signaled that workplace surveillance interfering with Section 7 rights is presumptively unlawful.

State AG Enforcement

#

State attorneys general increasingly pursue workplace AI claims:

• Illinois: BIPA claims for biometric monitoring
• California: CCPA claims for employee data practices
• New York: Algorithm accountability investigations
• Washington: Wage and hour claims involving AI scheduling

Best Practices for AI Workforce Management

#

Pre-Deployment

#

Before implementing HR analytics AI:

1. Impact assessment: Analyze potential discriminatory effects
2. Validation testing: Ensure AI performs as claimed
3. Bias testing: Test for disparate impact across protected groups
4. Documentation: Record methodology, training data, limitations
5. Legal review: Ensure compliance with applicable laws

Transparency Requirements

#

Employers should provide employees:

• Notice of AI use in employment decisions
• Explanation of factors considered by AI
• Access to their data collected by AI systems
• Opportunity to correct inaccurate data
• Right to human review of adverse decisions

Ongoing Monitoring

#

After deployment:

• Regular audits for discriminatory patterns
• Outcome tracking across protected groups
• Employee feedback mechanisms
• Incident response procedures
• Model updates to address identified issues

Accommodation Procedures

#

AI systems must accommodate:

• Disability: Adjust metrics, provide alternatives
• Religion: Schedule flexibility, monitoring exceptions
• Pregnancy: Modified expectations, protected leave
• FMLA: Excused absences not penalized in algorithms

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Related Resources

#

On This Site

#

• Employment AI Standard of Care, AI hiring discrimination and compliance
• Customer Service AI, AI in workplace interactions
• Healthcare AI, AI and employee wellness programs

Partner Sites

#

• AI Employment Law, Legal resources for workplace AI discrimination
• Find an Employment Attorney, Directory of attorneys handling AI employment cases