Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • LABOR—ORGANIZING, ELECTIONS—10th Cir.: Substantial evidence supported NLRB finding that employer threatened job loss if drivers organized
    • CONTRACT CLAIMS—1st Cir.: Extrinsic evidence of parties’ intent required to resolve contract dispute
    • CONTRACT CLAIMS—4th Cir.: Dismissal of alleged no-poach scheme for recruiting naval engineers reversed
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Navigating California's New Regulations on Automated Decision-Making Tools
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—New Jersey Sharpens Focus on Misclassification Issues, Inches Closer to Adopting “ABC Test” Regulations: What Businesses Need to Know
    • INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—5th Cir.: Alderman who declined to second clerk’s reappointment was entitled to qualified immunity
    • LABOR NEWS—Employees’ unions defend injunction against CFPB’s acting director’s ‘shutdown plan’
    • LABOR PULSE—Is this the AAUP’s moment to shine?
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—NEH grantees file suit alleging mass grant termination spurred by DOGE was unlawful
    • MSPB NEWS—Backlog may be nearly gone, but new one likely to appear after skyrocketing MSPB appeals
    • PROCEDURE—6th Cir.: Government immune from relief sought by Air Force reservist placed on inactive duty after refusing COVID vax
    • REPORTS—NELP report claims ‘deep racial inequities’ exist at outdoor goods retailer REI
    • TORT CLAIMS—W.D. Va.: Walmart worker fired after reporting manager gave him THC-laced gummies can’t advance public policy claim
    • WHISTLEBLOWERS—S.D. Ind.: Healthcare system’s argument regarding relevancy of requested discovery fails
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Navigating California's New Regulations on Automated Decision-Making Tools, (May 13, 2025)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Jackson Lewis
    Organizations Mentioned:Jackson Lewis, PC

    By Scott P. Jang of Jackson Lewis P.C.

    The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has recently approved regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to address discrimination in employment resulting from the use of automated decision-making systems, including artificial ...

    By Scott P. Jang of Jackson Lewis P.C.

    The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has recently approved regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to address discrimination in employment resulting from the use of automated decision-making systems, including artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms. These regulations apply to all employers covered by the FEHA and will likely take effect in July, once they complete the final administrative process of approval by the Office of Administrative Law.

    Definition of Automated Decision Systems

    An automated decision system (ADS) is defined as a computational process that makes or assists in making decisions regarding employment benefits such as hiring, promotion, selection for training programs, or similar activities. An ADS can result from AI, machine learning, algorithms, statistics, or other data processing techniques. The definition of ADS does not include word processing software, spreadsheet software, or other commonly used software for day-to-day work.

    Regulations Against Discrimination

    Under these regulations, it is unlawful for an employer to use ADS or selection criteria that discriminate against applicants or employees based on protected categories defined under FEHA. Evidence of anti-bias testing of ADS or similar practices may support defenses against discrimination claims. Anti-bias testing involves evaluating automated decision-making systems to identify and mitigate biases that may lead to unfair or discriminatory outcomes, ensuring the system operates equitably across different demographic groups. However, methods of conducting anti-bias testing may vary depending on the ADS used.

    Recordkeeping

    The regulations require preserving ADS data and related records for four years from either the date of the data's creation or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, similar to other types of personnel records and selection criteria. Other revisions include adding ADS to regulations in the definition of “application” or included in “recruitment activity.” Additionally, the regulations specify that using ADS for certain skill testing may necessitate providing reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs or disabilities, ensuring non-discriminatory practices.

    Compliance for Employers

    For employers in California, the regulations clarify that when using ADS for any aspect of employment, caution should be applied to avoid discrimination. If you have questions about compliance with the new regulations or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

    The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    Scott P. Jang

    Jackson Lewis P.C.

    666 3rd Ave

    28th Floor

    New York, NY 10017 United States

    Tel.: +1 212 545 4000

    E-mail: myupdates@jacksonlewis.com

    URL: www.jacksonlewis.com/

    © Mondaq Ltd., 2025 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

    Attorneys: Scott P. Jang (Jackson Lewis).

    ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights StateRegulations Discrimination CaliforniaNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use