Dieser Artikel ist derzeit auf Englisch verfügbar.
Can AI Be Used for Hiring Legally? What Employers and Candidates Need to Know
The legal requirements for using AI in recruitment and hiring — bias audits, disclosure obligations, anti-discrimination law, and what candidates can do.
Key Takeaways
AI in hiring is legal in most jurisdictions — but subject to anti-discrimination law, disclosure requirements, and in some jurisdictions, mandatory bias audits.
NYC Local Law 144 requires annual bias audits and candidate notification for automated employment decision tools. Illinois HB 3773 (effective 1 January 2026) extends similar requirements.
Colorado AI Act (effective 1 February 2026) classifies AI in employment as high-risk, requiring impact assessments and transparency.
Employers are liable for discriminatory AI hiring outcomes regardless of intent — disparate impact liability applies in the US, EU, UK, and Australia.
EU AI Act classifies AI in recruitment and hiring as high-risk under Annex III, requiring conformity assessment, human oversight, and documentation.
"Nur zu Informationszwecken. Dieser Artikel stellt keine rechtliche, regulatorische, finanzielle oder professionelle Beratung dar. Konsultieren Sie einen qualifizierten Spezialisten für spezifische Beratung."
AI in hiring — legal but heavily regulated
AI is used across the hiring process: resume screening, candidate ranking, video interview analysis, skills assessment, reference checking, and background screening. These tools can improve efficiency and reduce certain human biases — but they can also introduce new biases, reduce transparency, and create legal exposure if not properly governed.
Anti-discrimination law applies regardless
This is the foundational point: existing anti-discrimination law applies to AI hiring decisions with the same force as to human decisions. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (US), the Equality Act 2010 (UK), federal and state anti-discrimination legislation (Australia), and GDPR non-discrimination principles (EU) all apply. If an AI hiring tool produces discriminatory outcomes — even without explicit use of protected characteristics — the employer is liable. The Amazon hiring algorithm case study (2018) demonstrated how AI trained on historical hiring data can perpetuate existing bias.
Jurisdiction-specific requirements
New York City. Local Law 144 (effective since July 2023) requires employers using automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) to: conduct annual independent bias audits; publish audit results; notify candidates that an AEDT is being used; allow candidates to request alternative selection processes.
Illinois. HB 3773 (effective 1 January 2026) amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to prohibit AI that has a discriminatory effect on employees in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination. Employers must notify employees and candidates when AI is used in employment decisions.
Colorado. The Colorado AI Act (effective 1 February 2026) classifies AI in employment as high-risk. Deployers must: conduct impact assessments; provide transparency to affected individuals; implement risk management; maintain documentation. Small business exemptions exist for some provisions.
EU. The EU AI Act classifies AI used in recruitment and hiring as high-risk under Annex III. Requirements include: conformity assessment; quality management system; risk management; human oversight; transparency to candidates; technical documentation. The Digital Omnibus (May 2026 political agreement) delayed standalone Annex III obligations to 2 December 2027.
UK. The Equality Act 2010 applies. ICO guidance on AI and employment covers data protection requirements. The DUAA 2025 ADM reforms affect automated hiring decisions involving personal data.
Australia. Federal anti-discrimination legislation applies. State legislation varies. The Privacy Act ADM transparency obligation (effective 10 December 2026) will require disclosure of AI involvement in decisions substantially affecting individuals including hiring.
What employers must do
Conduct bias testing before deploying AI hiring tools — test for disparate impact across protected characteristics. Disclose AI use to candidates where required by law (NYC, Illinois, Colorado) and as good practice elsewhere. Maintain human oversight — a qualified human should review AI recommendations before making final hiring decisions. Document the AI's decision-making process, bias testing results, and human review. Ensure vendor contracts address bias testing, model transparency, and liability. Review and update regularly — bias testing is not a one-time exercise.
Primary sources: EEOC · EU AI Act · ICO
Related reading
AI in Hiring: Governance Risks · AI in Hiring: What Candidates Need to Know · Amazon Hiring Algorithm Case Study