Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Illinois Department of Human Rights Seeks Public Comment on Draft AI Employment Regulations

By Lindsey Tonsager, Jennifer Johnson, Carolyn Rashby, Michelle York & Bryan Ramirez on June 3, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Last month, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) released draft regulations addressing employers’ use of AI in employment decisions and invited public comment. The IDHR will hold a hearing on the draft regulations on June 10, and the public comment period will close on June 29.

Background

HB 3773 (the “Amendment”), which amended the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), took effect on January 1, 2026. The Amendment clarifies that it is a violation of the IHRA for an employer to use AI in a manner that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes in connection with covered employment decisions or to use of zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics. The Amendment requires employers to provide notice when artificial intelligence is used in employment decision-making. However, it does not specify the content or form of that notice and leaves other key implementation questions unresolved, thus setting the stage for the IDHR’s long-awaited draft regulations.

Key Provisions

Below we summarize the key provisions of the draft regulations.

  • Covered Employment Decisions. The draft regulations state that the Amendment would cover the use of AI in any “covered employment decision,” which is a decision with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.

  • Notice Requirements.
    • When Notice Is Required. The draft regulations would require employers to provide notice to applicants and employees when the employer uses AI to “influence or facilitate” a covered employment decision.
      • The draft regulations provide examples of when notice of AI use would generally be required, including:
        • When directing certain job ads or recruiting materials to targeted groups, areas, or populations;
        • Screening resumes for particular terms or patterns;
        • Measuring, monitoring or evaluating productivity or performance for the purpose of generating scores, ratings, or flags used in discipline or corrective action.
      • The draft regulations also provide examples of when notice of AI use would generally not be required, including:
        • When using AI for other business operations purposes and not for the purpose of making, influencing, or facilitating a covered employment decision or in ways that are “merely incidental” to the employment decision; and
        • When using a computer system that has distinguishable AI features or functionality, but the employer does not use such features to make, influence, or facilitate any covered employment decision.
    • Timing. Under the draft regulations, employers would need to provide notice to current employees and their exclusive bargaining representatives annually and within 30 days of adoption of a new or substantially updated product using AI for covered employment decisions. Employers would also need to provide notice to prospective employees as part of the job notice or posting.
    • Means for Providing Notice. The draft regulations provide that employers must provide notice by all of the following means, if applicable:
      • In any employee handbook, manual, or policy document;
      • In a conspicuous location on any physical premises where notices are customarily posted;
      • In any job notice or posting.
    • Content. According to the draft regulations, the notice must include certain information, including the developer, product name (if applicable), and vendor (if applicable) of the AI system; which covered employment decision the AI system is influencing or facilitating; the types of job positions the AI tool will be used for; a point of contact to whom questions about the system’s use can be directed; and specifying the right to request a reasonable accommodation and point of contact to make a request.
    • Accessibility. The draft regulations provide that the notice must be in a format that is readable, available in the languages commonly spoken by the employer’s workforce, and reasonably accessible to employees with disabilities.

  • Preservation of Records. The draft regulations increase the retention period for applicant and employee records to three years (previously one year), and require employers to retain any notices, postings, and disclosures regarding the employer’s use of AI, and records of such use, for three years following such use.
Tags: AI
Photo of Lindsey Tonsager Lindsey Tonsager

Lindsey Tonsager is a recognized leader in representing companies before federal and state regulators, and is renowned for advising on minor protection, AI, and state comprehensive privacy laws.

Lindsey chairs the firm’s global Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice. She advises clients in their…

Lindsey Tonsager is a recognized leader in representing companies before federal and state regulators, and is renowned for advising on minor protection, AI, and state comprehensive privacy laws.

Lindsey chairs the firm’s global Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice. She advises clients in their strategic and proactive engagement with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Congress, the California Privacy Protection Agency, and State Attorneys General on proposed changes to data protection laws, and regularly represents clients in responding to investigations and enforcement actions involving their privacy and information security practices.

Lindsey’s practice focuses on helping clients launch new products and services that implicate the laws governing the use of artificial intelligence; data processing for robotics, autonomous vehicles, and other connected devices; biometrics; online advertising; the collection of personal information from children, teens, and students online; e-mail marketing; disclosures of video viewing information; and new technologies.

Lindsey also assesses privacy and data security risks in complex corporate transactions where personal data is a critical asset or data processing risks are otherwise material. In light of a dynamic regulatory environment where new state, federal, and international data protection laws are always on the horizon and enforcement priorities are shifting, she focuses on designing risk-based global privacy programs for clients that can keep pace with evolving legal requirements and efficiently leverage the clients’ existing privacy policies and practices. She conducts data protection assessments to benchmark against legal requirements and industry trends and proposes practical risk mitigation measures.

Read more about Lindsey TonsagerEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Jennifer Johnson Jennifer Johnson

Jennifer Johnson is a partner specializing in communications, media and technology matters who serves as Co-Chair of Covington’s Technology Industry Group and its global and multi-disciplinary Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) Groups. She represents and advises technology companies, content distributors…

Jennifer Johnson is a partner specializing in communications, media and technology matters who serves as Co-Chair of Covington’s Technology Industry Group and its global and multi-disciplinary Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) Groups. She represents and advises technology companies, content distributors, television companies, trade associations, and other entities on a wide range of media and technology matters. Jennifer has three decades of experience advising clients in the communications, media and technology sectors, and has held leadership roles in these practices for more than twenty years. On technology issues, she collaborates with Covington’s global, multi-disciplinary team to assist companies navigating the complex statutory and regulatory constructs surrounding this evolving area, including product counseling and technology transactions related to connected and autonomous vehicles, internet connected devices, artificial intelligence, smart ecosystems, and other IoT products and services. Jennifer serves on the Board of Editors of The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law.

Jennifer assists clients in developing and pursuing strategic business and policy objectives before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress and through transactions and other business arrangements. She regularly advises clients on FCC regulatory matters and advocates frequently before the FCC. Jennifer has extensive experience negotiating content acquisition and distribution agreements for media and technology companies, including program distribution agreements, network affiliation and other program rights agreements, and agreements providing for the aggregation and distribution of content on over-the-top app-based platforms. She also assists investment clients in structuring, evaluating, and pursuing potential investments in media and technology companies.

Read more about Jennifer JohnsonEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Carolyn Rashby Carolyn Rashby

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.…

Carolyn Rashby provides business-focused advice and counsel to companies navigating the constantly evolving and overlapping maze of federal, state, and local employment requirements. Carolyn’s approach is preventive, while recognizing the need to set clients up for the best possible defense should disputes arise.

As a senior member of Covington’s Institutional Culture and Social Responsibility Practice Group, Carolyn has co-led significant investigations into workplace culture, DEI issues, and reports of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment.

As an employment lawyer with over two decades of experience, Carolyn focuses on a wide range of compliance and regulatory matters for employers, including:

Conducting audits regarding employee classification and pay equity
Advising on employment issues arising in corporate transactions
Strategic counseling on a wide range of issues including discrimination and harassment, wages and hours, worker classification, workplace accommodations and leave management, performance management and termination decisions, workplace violence, employment agreements, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, employee handbooks, and personnel policies
Drafting employment contracts and offer letters, separation agreements, NDAs, and other employment agreements
Advising on employee privacy matters, including under the California Consumer Privacy Act
Providing guidance on use of AI in the workplace and development of related policies
Leading anti-harassment and other workplace-related trainings, for employees, executives, and boards

Carolyn also works frequently with the firm’s white collar, privacy, employee benefits and executive compensation, corporate, government contracts, and cybersecurity practice groups to ensure that all potential employment issues are addressed in matters handled by these groups.

Read more about Carolyn RashbyEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Michelle York Michelle York

Michelle Barineau York advises U.S. and multinational employers on a broad spectrum of employment law matters. She regularly counsels employers on wage and hour compliance, employee classification, pay equity, and leave-related issues, and she drafts and negotiates key employment documents, including employment agreements…

Michelle Barineau York advises U.S. and multinational employers on a broad spectrum of employment law matters. She regularly counsels employers on wage and hour compliance, employee classification, pay equity, and leave-related issues, and she drafts and negotiates key employment documents, including employment agreements, workplace policies, and separation agreements. Michelle brings substantial experience investigating workplace complaints and frequently partners with white collar colleagues to conduct sensitive internal investigations.

Michelle guides employers through hiring, performance management, and employee terminations, as well as workforce change strategies, including reorganizations, reductions in force, and WARN compliance. She also provides practical, business-focused advice on workplace issues impacting employers, including remote work, employee privacy, and workplace culture, and she offers leading‑edge guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace.

Michelle helps clients navigate matters involving harassment, discrimination, non-competition, and other issues arising under state and federal employment laws including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. She relies on her experience as an employment litigator to advise clients when responding to agency charges and demand letters, including whistleblower retaliation complaints, and frequently interacts with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, state and local equal employment opportunity agencies, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Michelle works closely with colleagues in employee benefits and executive compensation and corporate groups to address employment matters arising in mergers, acquisitions, and other strategic transactions, and she regularly collaborates with California‑based colleagues on matters implicating California employment law.

Read more about Michelle YorkEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Bryan Ramirez Bryan Ramirez

Bryan Ramirez is an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office and is a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group. He advises clients on a range of regulatory and compliance issues, including compliance with state privacy laws. Bryan also maintains…

Bryan Ramirez is an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office and is a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group. He advises clients on a range of regulatory and compliance issues, including compliance with state privacy laws. Bryan also maintains an active pro bono practice.

Read more about Bryan RamirezEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Inside Privacy
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

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

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • 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