Restricts the use by an employer or an employment agency of electronic monitoring or an automated employment decision tool to screen a candidate or employee for an employment decision unless such tool has been the subject of an impact assessment within the last year; requires notice to employment candidates of the use of such tools; provides remedies for violations.
A03779 creates a new article in the Labor Law called the “Boundaries on Technology Act,” aimed at regulating employer use of automated employment decision tools and related electronic monitoring in hiring and workplace decisions. The bill applies to employers operating in New York and defines covered workers broadly, including candidates, employees, independent contractors, remote workers tied to a New York office or supervisor, and former employees in some circumstances. It requires employers with 100 or more employees to obtain an impact assessment before using an automated employment decision tool for employment decisions, and to repeat that assessment annually while the tool remains in use.
The bill also requires employers to give advance notice to employees and applicants when such tools are used, including information about what the tool evaluates, what data it uses, what outputs it produces, and, where applicable, the results of the most recent impact assessment. Employers may not rely solely on automated outputs for hiring, promotion, discipline, termination, or compensation decisions; they must maintain meaningful human oversight and cannot require consent to use the tool as a condition of consideration. The bill further gives workers rights to access and correct certain data used by the tool, imposes anti-retaliation protections, requires vendors to notify employers of their obligations, and authorizes enforcement by the Labor Commissioner and Attorney General with civil penalties and other remedies.
The bill would add a new regulatory framework to the New York Labor Law governing automated employment decision tools, data access, notice, audits, and enforcement. It also amends Labor Law section 218 so violations of the new article 35-A are subject to the same enforcement structure used for other labor law violations, including compliance orders and civil penalties. Employers, vendors, and impartial auditors would all face new obligations, while workers and job applicants would gain disclosure, correction, and anti-retaliation protections.
The available voting history suggests generally strong support for the bill in committee, with large favorable votes and only one dissenting vote in the earlier committee actions and unanimous favorable action in later committee votes. The bill’s purpose appears to be framed as consumer- and worker-protective, focusing on transparency, bias prevention, and human oversight in automated employment decisions. No committee transcript is provided, so the record here shows support more clearly than detailed debate.
The main points of potential contention are the compliance burden on employers and vendors, especially larger employers that must obtain annual impact assessments, provide detailed notices, retain documentation for three years, and respond to data requests within short deadlines. Another likely area of dispute is the scope of the bill’s restrictions on automated tools, including the prohibition on sole reliance on algorithmic outputs and the requirement to pause use of a tool if disparate impact is found until remedial steps are taken. Privacy concerns also arise because the bill allows collection of employee data for assessments but limits sharing and requires privacy protections, which may be viewed as necessary by worker advocates but burdensome by employers and technology vendors.