Automated Employment Decision Tools
NYC LL 144, the New York City automated employment decision tool law, is the most actively enforced AI hiring rule in the United States. This page explains what NYC LL 144 requires, who it covers, and what a compliant bias audit actually looks like.
The one-paragraph answer
NYC Local Law 144 requires employers using automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) to evaluate candidates for NYC positions to commission an independent bias audit, publish the results, notify candidates, and provide information on request. Effective July 5, 2023. Enforced by the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. Penalties start at $500 per violation, scaling up for repeat offenses.
Human resources leaders at every national employer that recruits in NYC are dealing with this law. The compliance operations are unusual: you need an independent auditor to run statistical tests on how your AI hiring tool performs across demographic groups, you need to publish a summary of the results on your website, you need to give notice to candidates, and you need to be able to explain the process. Most HR teams have never done this before. Vendors that provide AEDT tools are being asked whether they support Local Law 144 compliance, and vendor answers vary wildly.
The employer must commission an independent auditor (not the AEDT vendor, not the employer) to conduct a bias audit within one year before the AEDT is used. The audit must calculate specific statistical measures of impact across race, ethnicity, and sex/gender categories.
The employer must publish a summary of the most recent bias audit on its website. The summary must be accessible to candidates and remain posted while the AEDT is in use.
Candidates must be notified at least ten business days before AEDT is used that AEDT will be involved in the decision, what job qualifications and characteristics the AEDT will assess, and how candidates may request an alternative selection process or accommodation.
Candidates may request information about the type of data collected for the AEDT, the source of the data, and the employer's data retention policy.
An AEDT is any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output (a score, classification, or recommendation) that is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making for employment decisions that impact natural persons. The definition is broad by design.
Enforcement is active. The NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection has published guidance, is receiving complaints, and is investigating employers. Class action plaintiffs' lawyers are watching. Employers who fail to comply face escalating fines and potential Title VII exposure if the bias audit reveals discriminatory outcomes.
Beyond NYC, NYC Local Law 144 is the template for future state and municipal AI hiring laws. Similar laws are pending in Illinois (see Illinois AI Laws), California, New Jersey, and Washington DC.
The academic literature on NYC LL 144 is ahead of most corporate practice, and it is unusually blunt. Two findings are worth putting in front of any executive who thinks this is a compliance formality.
“Among these employers, 18 posted audit reports and 13 posted transparency notices.”
That is the gap between having AI and governing it. The second finding is the one that tends to change the room.
“bias audits produced in accordance with Local Law 144 are incomplete evaluations of algorithmic bias”
Neither of these is a fringe position. Both come from peer-reviewed work, and both describe the condition most organisations are actually in when the question about NYC LL 144 arrives from the board, the buyer, or the regulator.
This is the sequence that works, and it is not the sequence most organisations choose. They start with the framework and work backwards toward reality. Start with reality.
Done in this order, NYC LL 144 becomes tractable. Done out of order, it becomes a document nobody uses and a control nobody exercises.
Yes, if you use an AEDT to evaluate candidates for positions that will be performed in NYC or from an NYC office.
The auditor must not be the AEDT vendor, must not be the employer, and must not have a conflict of interest. Third-party auditing firms have emerged to serve this market.
The bias audit must cover the AEDT as used for NYC positions. Many employers audit their AEDT nationally to satisfy NYC and prepare for other jurisdictions.
The Bias Audit Working Reference from Volume III of The Operating Discipline for AI Library™ walks through the specific statistical measures Local Law 144 requires and the documentation employers need. The HR addendum covers the notice and disclosure obligations.
The authoritative texts and agency pages behind this summary. We keep this page current, but where a compliance decision turns on exact wording, read the source. Anything concerning NYC LL 144 that carries legal consequence should be confirmed against the enrolled text or the issuing body, not against a secondary summary, including this one.
The AI Business Enablement Audit™ measures your organization against every framework in this library, including NYC Local Law 144, and delivers a defensible governance dossier. Start or finish your audit below.
Start or finish your AI Audit →