A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning labor and safety.
HB 1421 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code regulating employer use of automated decision systems in employment-related decisions. The bill defines automated decision systems broadly to include software or processes using machine learning, statistics, artificial intelligence, or other data processing techniques, and it covers both applicants and current workers. It prohibits employers from relying exclusively on such systems to make employment decisions and restricts the use of automated decision system outputs unless a series of conditions are met.
Under the bill, employers that use these systems must conduct predeployment testing and validation, including testing for efficacy, compliance with federal employment discrimination laws, discriminatory impact, and alignment with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Employers must also perform annual independent bias testing, provide detailed disclosures to affected individuals, ensure meaningful human oversight, and give workers or applicants plain-language documentation and an opportunity to dispute or appeal decisions to a human reviewer. The bill also requires training for those who operate or use the systems and gives covered individuals the right to opt out of automated management in favor of a human manager.
HB 1421 would add a new labor-law chapter to Indiana law governing the use of automated decision systems in hiring, discipline, pay, scheduling, benefits, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment. It applies to employers with 11 or more covered individuals, as well as state agencies and political subdivisions, and it creates new compliance, disclosure, recordkeeping, and training obligations. The bill also authorizes the Department of Labor to investigate complaints, require reports, and enforce the chapter, while also allowing covered individuals and labor organizations to sue directly for violations. Remedies include actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages, injunctive and equitable relief, reinstatement for retaliation claims, and attorney’s fees and costs.
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears protective of workers and cautious toward employer use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The bill is framed as a consumer- and worker-protection measure aimed at transparency, human oversight, and anti-discrimination safeguards rather than a ban on all AI use. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention likely concern the breadth of the restrictions and the compliance burden on employers. Employers may object to the bill’s detailed testing, disclosure, documentation, annual public bias-testing, and human-review requirements, as well as the private right of action and significant statutory damages. Labor organizations and worker advocates would likely support the bill’s transparency, appeal rights, anti-retaliation protections, and opt-out from automated management. Another potential issue is the bill’s broad definition of automated decision systems, which could capture a wide range of hiring and workplace software, including tools used for screening, scheduling, performance evaluation, and benefits administration.