Your AI Hiring Tool Doesn’t Get You Off the Hook
A lot of employers assume that once a hiring platform runs the scoring, the company can step back and trust the number.
That assumption holds up right until a rejected applicant asks who reviewed the score and why it came out the way it did. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code § 12940, does not transfer responsibility to a software vendor just because the vendor built the tool. The company that used the tool to decide who gets hired is the company that has to defend the decision. California’s automated-decision-system regulations reach resume screening, video-interview analysis, and any scoring tool that shapes who moves forward in the hiring pipeline.
The exposure shows up in discovery, not in the interview room. Once a claim is filed, the employer has to explain what the tool actually measured, whether that measurement connects to the job, and whether every applicant in the pool was scored the same way. A vendor’s claim that its software is bias-tested does not answer any of those three questions on its own. Small employers without in-house counsel are often the least prepared for this, since the pitch for AI hiring tools is speed, not defensibility.
Treating a vendor’s tool as a black box does not remove the company from the chain of responsibility. It just removes the company’s own understanding of what the tool is doing. That gap is the real risk.
If your hiring process leans on a scoring tool the company could not explain under oath, that gap is the exposure, not the tool itself. Understanding what a vendor’s tool actually measures, before a claim forces the question, is worth a short conversation.
Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine what needs to be addressed – and how much of a conversation that takes.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts – no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.