Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Navigating California’s New Regulations on Automated Decision-Making Tools

By Scott P. Jang on May 5, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
3D render (Blender 3.4)
Pawel Czerwinski, Unsplash

Table of Contents

  • Definition of Automated Decision Systems
  • Regulations Against Discrimination
  • Recordkeeping
  • Compliance for Employers

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has recently approved regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to address discrimination in employment resulting from the use of automated decision-making systems, including artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms. These regulations apply to all employers covered by the FEHA and will likely take effect in July, once they complete the final administrative process of approval by the Office of Administrative Law.

Link to Definition of Automated Decision Systems Definition of Automated Decision Systems

An automated decision system (ADS) is defined as a computational process that makes or assists in making decisions regarding employment benefits such as hiring, promotion, selection for training programs, or similar activities. An ADS can result from AI, machine learning, algorithms, statistics, or other data processing techniques. The definition of ADS does not include word processing software, spreadsheet software, or other commonly used software for day-to-day work.

Link to Regulations Against Discrimination Regulations Against Discrimination

Under these regulations, it is unlawful for an employer to use ADS or selection criteria that discriminate against applicants or employees based on protected categories defined under FEHA. Evidence of anti-bias testing of ADS or similar practices may support defenses against discrimination claims. Anti-bias testing involves evaluating automated decision-making systems to identify and mitigate biases that may lead to unfair or discriminatory outcomes, ensuring the system operates equitably across different demographic groups. However, methods of conducting anti-bias testing may vary depending on the ADS used.

Link to Recordkeeping Recordkeeping

The regulations require preserving ADS data and related records for four years from either the date of the data’s creation or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, similar to other types of personnel records and selection criteria. Other revisions include adding ADS to regulations in the definition of “application” or included in “recruitment activity.” Additionally, the regulations specify that using ADS for certain skill testing may necessitate providing reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs or disabilities, ensuring non-discriminatory practices.

Link to Compliance for Employers Compliance for Employers

For employers in California, the regulations clarify that when using ADS for any aspect of employment, caution should be applied to avoid discrimination. If you have questions about compliance with the new regulations or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Photo of Scott P. Jang Scott P. Jang

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a co-leader of the firm’s Class Actions and Complex Litigation practice group and Technology industry group. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with…

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a co-leader of the firm’s Class Actions and Complex Litigation practice group and Technology industry group. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with particular focus on class actions and complex litigation. Scott is a member of the firm’s California Class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Action group, as well as a member of the California Advice and Counsel resource group.

Scott’s litigation experience covers the full spectrum of employment law. He has experience defending employers against claims for alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair competition. He also has experience defending employers against various wage and hour claims, including claims for alleged overtime, meal and rest breaks, and business expense reimbursement. Scott’s trial practice includes having served as second chair in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which a national beverage manufacturer fully prevailed on all claims for alleged misclassification. He has also served as first chair in several arbitrations for a national retailer for alleged wage and hour violations.

Read more about Scott P. JangEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor, Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    California Workplace Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo