Your Hiring Software Made the Call. You’re Still the One Who Answers for It

Some employers treat an AI-assisted screening tool as a neutral filter, a way to remove human bias from hiring decisions rather than add to it.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code § 12940(a)) doesn’t distinguish between a decision made by a person and one made by software the employer chose to use. If a screening tool systematically filters out applicants based on characteristics tied to a protected class, even unintentionally, even as a byproduct of how it was trained, the disparate-impact exposure lands on the employer, not the vendor.

California has also adopted regulations specifically addressing automated-decision systems in employment, adding another layer employers using these tools need to account for.

The practical risk for a small or mid-size business isn’t usually the tool itself. It’s the assumption that because a vendor sold it as compliant, no further review is needed: no audit of outcomes, no documentation of why the tool was selected, nothing showing anyone checked what the tool was actually screening for.

A state-level tracker now watching how AI tools intersect with California’s workforce is one more reason this isn’t a wait-and-see issue.

If your business uses any AI-assisted tool in hiring, screening, or workforce decisions, a documented review of what it’s actually doing is worth having on file. 

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.