Prohibits employers from engaging in discrimination on the basis of a protected class when using artificial intelligence for recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.
S09028 amends New York’s Executive Law to address the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. It defines both “artificial intelligence” and “generative artificial intelligence,” then makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use AI in recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, training or apprenticeship selection, discharge, discipline, tenure, or other terms and conditions of employment in a way that results in discrimination against a protected class. The bill also specifically bars the use of zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics in AI-driven employment practices.
The bill further requires employers to notify employees when artificial intelligence is being used for the covered employment purposes. It directs the Division of Human Rights to adopt rules and regulations to implement and enforce the new requirements, including when notice must be given, how long employers have to provide it, and the method of notice. The act would take effect 180 days after becoming law.
This bill would expand New York’s anti-discrimination framework by explicitly applying existing protected-class employment rules to artificial intelligence systems used in workplace decision-making. It would add new statutory definitions to the Executive Law and create a new unlawful discriminatory practice under the Human Rights Law for AI-based employment practices that have discriminatory effects, including proxy discrimination through zip codes. Employers using AI for hiring or other personnel actions would also face a new notice obligation, and the Division of Human Rights would gain rulemaking authority to enforce the provision.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears aimed at preventing algorithmic discrimination and increasing transparency in employment, which suggests a consumer- and worker-protection orientation. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means the public legislative sentiment cannot be determined from the available materials.
The main policy tension in the bill is between preventing discriminatory outcomes from AI systems and the compliance burden placed on employers that use automated tools in hiring and personnel decisions. Potential points of contention include how broadly “artificial intelligence” is defined, whether employers can reliably detect and prevent proxy discrimination, and what notice requirements will be imposed by regulation. Employers, HR technology vendors, and civil rights advocates would likely be the key stakeholders, with advocates favoring stronger protections and employers potentially concerned about operational costs, uncertainty, and enforcement exposure.