Understanding AI Bias

Artificial Intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing the way we live and work, with its ability to analyze large amounts of data and make decisions faster than humans. However, AI systems are not infallible, and they are susceptible to biases that can have serious consequences. Understanding AI bias is crucial to addressing its impact on employment discrimination and unfair outcomes.

At its core, AI bias occurs when algorithms make decisions based on incorrect or incomplete data, resulting in potential discriminatory actions. These biases can stem from various sources, including biased training data, flawed algorithms, or human biases that are transferred into the AI system. For example, if an AI system is trained on data that disproportionately represents certain demographic groups, it may lead to biased outcomes that favor or discriminate against those groups.

The implications of AI bias can be far-reaching, particularly in sectors where AI is heavily relied upon, such as recruitment, lending, and criminal justice. Biased AI algorithms can perpetuate discriminatory practices, exacerbating existing social inequalities and further marginalizing already disadvantaged groups. For instance, biased algorithms in the hiring and promotion processes may unfairly screen out qualified job applicants from underrepresented backgrounds, perpetuating a lack of diversity in the workplace.

To mitigate the impact of AI bias, it is crucial to ensure that existing anti-discrimination laws are applicable and enforced in the context of AI systems. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The law is designed to protect job applicants from unfair treatment, and the EEOC’s position is that Title VII applies to an employer’s use of AI systems.

However, applying Title VII to AI presents unique challenges. AI algorithms are often opaque and complex, making it difficult to identify and address biases effectively. Additionally, there is a lack of transparency and accountability in the development and deployment of AI systems, which further complicates the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. To address these challenges, there is a need for emerging regulations specifically addressing AI bias and ensuring that AI systems are transparent, accountable, and fair.

How AI Bias Can Perpetuate Employment Discrimination

AI bias can have significant implications when it comes to perpetuating employment discrimination. When AI algorithms are trained on biased data or contain inherent biases, they have the potential to reinforce and exacerbate existing social inequalities.

One way in which AI bias can perpetuate employment discrimination is through biased decision-making in hiring, recruitment and promotion processes. If an AI system is trained on data that reflects historical patterns of employment discrimination, it may inadvertently favor certain demographic groups over others. For example, if a company historically hired predominantly male candidates for a certain role, an AI algorithm trained on that data may be more likely to recommend male candidates in the future, perpetuating gender biases and limiting diversity in the workplace.

To address the perpetuation of employment discrimination through AI bias, it is crucial to ensure that employers critically apply Title VII standards while evaluating and implementing their use of AI systems.

Title VII and Its Applicability to AI

One of the primary challenges in applying Title VII to AI is the complexity and opacity of AI algorithms. Unlike traditional human decision-making, AI algorithms often operate on large amounts of data and utilize complex calculations and models. As a result, identifying and addressing biases embedded within these algorithms can be challenging. Transparency in AI systems becomes crucial to ensure that biases are detectable and can be effectively mitigated.

Furthermore, the lack of accountability in the development and deployment of AI systems poses additional obstacles to the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. AI algorithms are often created by teams of data scientists, engineers, and other experts, making it difficult to attribute responsibility for any biased outcomes. Additionally, AI systems can evolve and learn over time, making it essential to have mechanisms in place to continuously monitor and correct biases.

To address these challenges, Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws must be considered when designing AI systems free of bias. These laws and other regulations should focus on ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in the development and deployment of AI systems.

Transparency is a crucial aspect of addressing AI bias. Many AI algorithms operate on large amounts of data and use complex calculations and models, making it difficult to identify biases. Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws should require organizations to document the decision-making process of their AI algorithms and regularly evaluate them for biases. This transparency will allow for biases to be detected and addressed before they perpetuate employment discrimination.

Accountability is another key factor in combating AI bias. The development and deployment of AI systems often involve teams of data scientists, engineers, and other experts, making it challenging to attribute responsibility for any biased outcomes. To ensure accountability, emerging regulations should establish mechanisms for organizations to take ownership of their AI systems and the potential biases they may have. Additionally, there should be avenues for individuals to report potential biases and for independent audits to be conducted to ensure compliance with Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws.

Fairness is the ultimate goal when it comes to addressing AI bias. Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws should focus on creating a level playing field for all individuals, regardless of their background or characteristics. By promoting fairness, these regulations can help to counteract biases that may exist in the data used to train AI algorithms and prevent discriminatory outcomes.

Implementing regulations that specifically address AI bias presents both challenges and opportunities. It requires collaboration between lawmakers, technology experts, and organizations to develop effective policies and guidelines. Additionally, there is a need for ongoing research and innovation to develop tools and methods that can effectively detect and mitigate biases in AI systems.

The application of Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws to AI systems requires careful consideration and adaptation. As technology advances, so must our legal frameworks to protect against potential discrimination and unfair outcomes. By recognizing the challenges posed by AI bias and implementing targeted regulations, we can strive for a future where AI systems are transparent and accountable, designed to promote equality for all.

Additionally, Title VII provides job applicants with avenues for recourse if they believe they have been subjected to employment discrimination by an AI system. This includes the ability to file complaints with the EEOC and seek remedies for any harm suffered as a result of AI bias.

NYSHRL and Its Applicability to AI

The New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL] plays a crucial role in protecting individuals from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. When it comes to the use of Artificial Intelligence [AI] in these areas, the NYSHRL has an important role to play.

Under the NYSHRL, it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual based on protected characteristics, such as race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. This means that employers and other entities utilizing AI systems must ensure that these systems do not perpetuate biases or result in discriminatory outcomes.

The NYSHRL can be applied to AI systems by holding employers and entities accountable for any discriminatory actions caused by biased algorithms or flawed data. Employers must ensure that their AI systems are designed and implemented in a way that is fair and inclusive and that any biases are actively identified and corrected.

Additionally, the NYSHRL provides job applicants with avenues for recourse if they believe they have been subjected to employment discrimination by an AI system. This includes the ability to file complaints with the [SDHR] and seek remedies for any harm suffered as a result of AI bias.

In summary, the NYSHRL has a critical role to play in ensuring that AI systems do not perpetuate employment discrimination. By holding employers accountable and providing avenues for individuals to seek justice, the NYSHRL helps to promote equality and fairness in the age of AI.

NYCHRL and Its Applicability to AI

On July 5, 2023, the City of New York passed legislation restricting employers’ use of artificial intelligence-driven employment tools. Under Local Law 144 of 2021, automated employment decision tools [] prohibits employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool unless the tool has been subject to a bias audit within one year of the use of the tool.

The [NYCHRL] is a powerful tool in combating employment discrimination in the context of Artificial Intelligence [AI]. The NYCHRL provides robust protections against discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

When it comes to AI systems, the NYCHRL ensures that employers and entities using these systems are held accountable for any biases or discriminatory outcomes they may perpetuate. Employers must take proactive steps to ensure that their AI systems are fair, inclusive, and free from bias.

The NYCHRL also provides individuals who believe they have been subjected to employment discrimination by an AI system with avenues for recourse. They can file complaints with the [NYCCHR] and seek remedies for any harm suffered as a result of AI bias.

In summary, the NYCHRL has a critical role to play in ensuring that AI systems do not perpetuate employment discrimination. By holding employers accountable and providing avenues for individuals to seek justice, the NYCHRL helps to promote equality and fairness in the age of AI.

Contact Us

As a job applicant, if you believe that AI bias impacted your employment opportunities, contact When you do so a lawyer who is experienced in Title VII and other anti-discrimination law will review your claim, and discuss the possible routes you may choose to assert your legal claims. ������. is dedicated to being your voice for justice when you have been the victim of any type of discrimination, including discriminatory practices related to AI bias.

The post Employment Discrimination in the Age of AI first appeared on ������..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ������. discusses how to file an employment discrimination complaint

The post Filing An Employment Discrimination Complaint first appeared on ������..

The main purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to eliminate unlawful discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission () was given powers to enforce the laws that make it “illegal to fire, demote, harass, or otherwise “retaliate” against people (applicants or employees) because they filed a charge of discrimination.” It further states that is also illegal for an employer or covered entity to do the same because they complained about ‘discrimination on the job, or because they participated in an employment discrimination proceeding (such as an investigation or lawsuit).” A covered entity is an employer with 15 or more employees who are protected under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and American with Disabilities Act.

With respect to retaliation, if an employee files a complaint against an employer about workplace harassment or discrimination either to an internal body or an external body such as the EEOC, federal law “forbids retaliation when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.” The law also protects individuals who cooperate in an EEOC investigation or serve as a witness to an EEOC investigation or litigation according to a Supreme Court decision.

However, The Supreme Court of the United States in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar recently revisited the issue of workplace retaliation and discrimination after a writ of certiorari (a document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court it to review the decision of a lower court) was presented before the Court. Specifically at issue, does Title VII require a plaintiff alleging retaliation to show that retaliation was the only reason for a negative employment action? In this case, the respondent, Dr. Naiel Nasser, man of Middle Eastern descent, was a faculty member of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW). The doctor in charge of the clinic, Nasser’s supervisor, Dr. Beth Levine began to question the respondent’s work practices and made offensive comments about Dr. Nasser’s ethnic background to another employee. Meanwhile, during this same he sought a promotion and obtained the promotion, however, he was still under Dr. Levine’s supervision and sought a position where he would not be.

He then sought employment at a clinic and was offered a position but would have to resign from UTSW. While waiting for the position start date he wrote his resignation letter to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center citing the primary reason for leaving was “the continual harassment and discrimination” by Dr. Levine. He further stated that she threatened him with potential job and salary loss and her treatment of him stems from her “religious, racial and cultural bias against Arabs and Muslims that has resulted in a hostile work environment.”
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center through an agent of the employer, Dr. Gregory Fitz, took issue with the wording of Dr. Nasser’s resignation letter in regards to Dr. Levine and actively sought to block the respondent from obtaining employment at the clinic. After heavy opposition from UTSW faculty the clinic withdrew their offer. He filed a lawsuit submitting that UTSW constructively discharged and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Simply put, the respondent argued that a workplace retaliation claim alone would trigger Title VII protection while UTSW held that retaliation would be in addition to a claim based upon discrimination with race, sex, and religion.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided there is separation between retaliation claims from class based discrimination claims and that retaliation claims are to be held to a stricter standard of proof which to the Court made sense given the “ever increasing frequency” retaliation claims are being filed. Thus based on the Supreme Court decision, an employee who believes that an employer has retaliated them against must show that retaliation was not the only factor in any adverse action taken by the employer.

It is a big victory for employers, which hopefully doesn’t discourage those individuals who believe that their rights have been violated or retaliated against in the workplace; this decision just made it more challenging to prove.

If you believe that, you are the victim of retaliation contact ������. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Workplace Retaliation first appeared on ������..

In addition to the laws that are enacted and are applicable throughout the State of New York, the City of New York has been very progressive enacting several expansive anti-discrimination laws.  In many respects, the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) are very similar in structure, legislative intent and application.  Laws enforced under the NYSHRL may be adjudicated administratively at the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR).  The NYSHRL may also be enforced by filing a lawsuit in federal or state court.  Laws enforced under the NYCHRL may be adjudicated administratively at the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR).  The NYCHRL may also be enforced by filing a lawsuit in federal or state court.

The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, citizenship status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc.  The NYCHRL also prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of arrest or conviction record.  The NYCHRL prohibits retaliation.  Recently, through the New York City Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005, the NYCHRL was enacted to further enhanced and broadened  protections relative to both the federal laws and the NYSHRL counterparts.

In Gina Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, et al., 61 AD3d 62 January 27, 2009.  The Court held that, the Restoration Act notified courts that (a) they had to be aware that some provisions of the NYCHRL were textually distinct from its state and federal counterparts, (b) all provisions of the NYCHRL required independent construction to accomplish the law’s uniquely broad purposes, ^[and (c) cases that had failed to respect these differences were being legislatively overruled. In short, the text and legislative history represent a desire that the NYCHRL “meld the broadest vision of social justice with the strongest law enforcement deterrent.”  The Court then affirmed the lower Court’s dismissal because the Pro See plaintiff did not raise the misapplication of the law during her appeal.

In Howard Hoffman v. Parade Publishing, et al., 2010 NY Slip Op 05706 decided July 1, 2010, the court held that the protections of the NYCHRL would be available to an employee that resides in the City of New York, even if the employer is located outside of the City of New York if, its’ decision had an “impact” within the City of New York.

In Daniel M. Maffei v. Kolaeton Industry, Inc. et al., the court held that the NYCHRL applied to prohibited discrimination against transgendered individuals.
To file a discrimination complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, please call 311 if you are located within the City of New York or 212-306-7450

CCHR Community Service Centers

Manhattan
40 Rector Street, 10^th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10006
212-306-5070
Brooklyn
275 Livingston Street, 2^nd Floor
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11217
718-722-3130
Bronx
1932 Arthur Avenue, Room 203A
Bronx, N.Y. 10457
718-579-6900
Queens
153-01 Jamaica Avenue, Room 203
Jamaica, N.Y. 11432
718-657-2465
Staten Island
60 Bay Street, 7^th Floor
Staten Island, N.Y. 10301
718-390-8506

The post City of New York Anti-Discrimination Legislative Initiatives first appeared on ������..

Under Federal, State and some local laws, it is illegal to discriminate against an individual for their:
• Ethnicity
• Skin color, or related facial features
• Country of origin
• Age
• Sex
• Religious beliefs
• Political alignment
• Arrest and conviction record

What constitutes discrimination?

An act constitutes discrimination if you are subjected to treatment that is different from that way others are treated. The differentiation must be in a negative or adverse manner to be considered discrimination; if, due to your race, religion, or status, you are subjected to extra special service, or some other positive act, although you may have been treated differently, the act does not constitute discrimination. Examples of discrimination include:
• Being refused service at a restaurant due to your skin color
• Not being hired for a job due because of your religious beliefs
• Other employees are promoted over you, despite your being more qualified due to your race
• Being refused entrance into an establishment due to your country of origin
• Having to resign from your employment, due to unwarranted sexual gestures and advances towards you
• Being fired from your job after your employer learns that you have different political views
• Being fired from your job due to your sexual orientation
• Not receiving service from an employee or business with anti-war views, upon their learning of your status as a veteran
• Being turned down for a job, despite being qualified, due to your marital status
• Not being allowed to enter a church after being charged with a crime

What do I need to file a discrimination complaint?

If you plan on filing a discrimination complaint, it is imperative that you document as much as possible. For example, if you have been discriminated against while applying for a job, prepare all the documents relevant to your job application process. If you were treated unfairly at a business establishment, keep receipts or other relevant material. If you are able to take photographs or video, related to the act of discrimination against you, due so. Write down the names of the offender as well as witnesses including the surrounding circumstances.

How do I file a discrimination complaint?

Before filing your complaint, you may want to consult with an attorney. When considering legal advice, it would serve you well to consult with an attorney that handles discrimination cases. The attorney will consider your claims then suggest ways to meet your legal needs.
Complaints about discrimination covered under may be filed with the federal government. To file a complaint with the , please contact the online. In New York, you may file in person at 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004.

Complaints about discrimination covered under New York State Executive Law 296, may be filed with the state government. To file a complaint with the , please contact the online. You may file in person but, see the website for further information as the filing locations vary depending on the type of discrimination and the location.

Complaints about discrimination covered under New York City Administrative Code 8-107, may be filed with the City of New York. To file a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, please contact the online. You may file in person but, see the website for further information.

The post Filing a Discrimination Complaint first appeared on ������..

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) safeguards the residents of United States against discrimination by an employer, labor union or employment agency on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or religion either at the time of applying for a job or at the work place. EEOC enforces the law only against those employers who have at least 15 employees and in cases of age discrimination, only employers who have at least 20 employees.

Any person who has been subjected to discrimination by an employer, labor union or employment agency to which the EEOC laws apply can file a Charge of Discrimination in the nearest EEOC office. A charge may be filed either in person, through the mail, online or via telephone.

When filing a charge in person, the EEOC prefers that the complainant bring all relevant documents with them such as notice of termination, performance evaluations, etc. When filing a charge by mail, the charge must contain the following: the name, address and telephone number of the complainant, the name of the employer, labor union or employment agency against whom the charge is intended to be filed, the number of employees employed, a brief description of the alleged discrimination along with the dates of the alleged acts. The charge must be notarized.

When filing a charge with the EEOC, the complainant must be aware of very strict timeframes. Generally, charges must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act. In New York, which is a Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA) state, the charge must be filed within 300 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act. There are some limited exceptions to the abovementioned guidelines such as in the case of a hostile work environment. In such cases, as long as the last alleged discriminatory act occurs within the abovementioned timeframes, any alleged act occurring prior to the timeframe may be considered for liability purposes. If the charge cannot be resolved within the EEOC, the complainant may pursue their claims in state or federal court.

Persons filing charges of discrimination alleging violations of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must follow the abovementioned guidelines. However, persons alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) are not required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, those persons may file such claims in federal court.
 

The post Filing Charges of Employment Discrimination with the EEOC first appeared on ������..