法官允许针对 Workday 的人工智能偏见诉讼继续进行Workday因其AI筛选软件涉嫌偏见而面临集体诉讼。美国加州北区地方法院法官Rita Lin裁定，Workday可能被视为受联邦反歧视法律保护的雇主，因为它执行的筛选功能是其客户通常自己执行的。这一裁决可能会对使用AI进行招聘的法律责任产生重大影响。该诉讼由Derek Mobley提起，他表示自己因为是黑人、年龄超过40岁且患有焦虑和抑郁症而被Workday的客户公司拒绝了超过100次工作机会。EEOC警告雇主，如果他们未能防止筛选软件产生歧视性影响，他们可能会承担法律责任。
7月15日（路透社）——加利福尼亚的一位联邦法官驳回了Workday公司试图驳回一项拟议中的集体诉讼的请求。该诉讼称，Workday公司用于筛选其他企业求职者的人工智能软件中包含了现有的偏见。
在这一首例裁决中，美国地方法官Rita Lin于周五表示，Workday可以被视为受联邦工作场所歧视法律覆盖的雇主，因为它执行了其客户通常自己进行的筛选功能。
Lin拒绝驳回Derek Mobley在2023年提出的几项诉讼。Mobley声称由于他是黑人、年龄超过40岁并患有焦虑和抑郁症，他在与Workday签约的公司中申请了超过100个职位但都被拒绝。
此案是首个挑战使用AI筛选软件的拟议集体诉讼，可能会在使用AI自动化招聘和其他就业功能的法律影响上树立重要的先例。现在，大多数大型公司都在使用这种技术。
Lin驳回了Workday基于种族和年龄的故意歧视指控。她还裁定该公司不能被视为反偏见法下的“就业机构”，因为与人力资源公司不同，它不为工人提供就业机会。
Workday发言人在一份声明中表示，公司对Lin驳回部分指控感到满意。“我们有信心在进入下一阶段时能轻松驳斥剩余指控，因为我们将有机会直接挑战其准确性，”发言人说。
Mobley的律师没有立即回应置评请求。诉讼称，Workday使用公司现有员工的数据来训练其AI软件，以筛选最佳申请者，但没有考虑到现有歧视可能反映的问题。
Mobley指控Workday违反了1964年《民权法案》第七章（Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964）和其他联邦反歧视法律，进行了种族、年龄和残疾歧视。拟议中的集体诉讼可能包括数十万人。
Workday表示，由于它不是Mobley的潜在雇主，也不是可以因歧视而被追责的就业机构，因为它不为客户做出招聘决定，因此不受工作场所偏见法律的约束。
但Lin在周五表示，反偏见法律旨在广泛保护工人，防止雇主将筛选申请者等任务外包以逃避责任，并且Workday可以作为其客户的代理人承担责任。
“（诉讼）合理地声称Workday的客户将包括拒绝申请者在内的传统招聘功能委托给Workday提供的算法决策工具，”民主党总统Joe Biden任命的Lin写道。
美国平等就业机会委员会（U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission）负责执行联邦禁止工作场所歧视的法律，该机构在4月份的一份简报中曾敦促Lin让案件继续进行。该机构警告雇主，如果他们未能防止筛选软件产生歧视性影响，他们可能会被追究法律责任。
discrimination
2024年07月17日
discrimination
美国公民自由联盟对Aon人工智能招聘工具发起投诉美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）于2024年6月6日向美国联邦贸易委员会提交了针对Aon的投诉，挑战其候选人评估工具的合法性和偏见问题。ACLU指控Aon的评估工具，如Adept-15人格测试和vidAssess-AI视频评估工具，在市场上虚假宣称“无偏见”并能“增进多样性”，实际上这些工具可能基于种族和残疾（如自闭症和心理健康障碍）歧视求职者。此外，ACLU还提到，Aon的gridChallenge认知能力评估也显示出种族表现上的差异。针对这些指控，Aon回应称其评估工具遵循行业最佳实践和EEOC、法律及专业指导原则。ACLU此举揭示了在职场包容性与合规性之间的紧张关系，呼吁更严格审查这些广泛使用的人力资源技术工具。
在人力资源技术迅速发展的世界中，人工智能（AI）扮演着关键角色，承诺将简化流程并增强招聘实践的效率。然而，AI整合到这些实践中经常引发关于公平性和歧视的重大争议。最近的一个例子涉及到全球专业服务公司Aon，该公司的AI驱动的招聘评估工具因美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的指控而受到审查。ACLU向美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）正式投诉Aon，突显了关于AI在招聘中应用的重要对话。
ACLU投诉的基础
ACLU指控Aon欺骗性地营销其招聘评估工具——特别是Adept-15性格评估、vidAssess-AI视频面试工具和gridChallenge认知能力测试——这些工具被宣称为无偏见并有助于提高工作场所的多样性。根据ACLU的说法，这些声明不仅具有误导性，而且可能违法，因为这些工具可能会基于种族和残疾（如自闭症、抑郁症和焦虑症）歧视求职者。这些工具使用算法和AI进行评估，根据候选人的积极性、情感意识和活力等特征进行评估，这些特征往往与工作表现无直接关联，且可能对某些残疾人群产生不成比例的影响。
Aon的辩护和行业实践
面对ACLU的指控，Aon为其产品辩护，声称这些工具是根据法律和专业指南（包括平等就业机会委员会EEOC设定的指南）设计的。Aon强调他们的工具是雇主用于做出更具包容性招聘决策的更广泛评估工具集的一部分。此外，Aon还指出其工具的效率和成本效益，认为这些工具比传统方法更少歧视性。
法律和道德含义
这场争议引发了关于使用AI进行就业的重要法律和道德问题。美国的法律，包括美国残疾人法案（ADA）和民权法案第七章，要求就业中的非歧视实践，涵盖从招聘到工作场所的所有方面。ACLU向FTC的投诉不仅提示可能违反这些法律，还将问题框定为不仅是就业歧视，还涉及消费者欺诈的问题。
更广泛的行业关注
ACLU对Aon的行动是更广泛运动的一部分，旨在审查用于招聘的AI工具。批评者认为，虽然这些技术提供了无偏见决策的潜力，但它们常常缺乏透明度，并可能无意中编码了其开发者或它们所训练的数据集的偏见。这一问题由于这些工具的专有性质而变得更加复杂，这阻碍了对它们的公平性和效率进行彻底的公众评估。
潜在后果和改革
ACLU对Aon的投诸可能对人力资源技术行业产生深远影响。如果FTC决定调查或制裁Aon，可能会导致对AI在招聘中的使用进行更严格的监管，可能为整个行业中类似工具的市场营销和实施设定先例。对依赖这些工具的公司而言，此案可能是重新评估其算法以确保符合反歧视法律的关键提示。
此外，此案凸显了技术专家、法律专家、政策制定者和民权倡导者之间需要进行持续对话的需求，以确保AI的进步能够增强而非破坏工作场所的平等。随着AI继续渗透到各种人力资源方面，制定维护反歧视和坚持道德原则的标准和最佳实践将至关重要。
结论
ACLU对Aon的投诉提醒我们在AI时代，创新、监管和权利之间的复杂相互作用。虽然AI为HR提供了变革的潜力，但它也需要谨慎处理以防止新形式的歧视。这个案例可能会成为AI在招聘伦理辩论中的一个里程碑，促使所有利益相关者考虑其技术选择的更广泛影响。随着法律程序的展开，人力资源技术行业将密切关注，意识到AI在招聘中的未来现在受到更审慎的公众和法律审视。
Unveiling Bias: The Controversy Over Aon's AI Hiring Tools and the ACLU's Challenge
In the rapidly evolving world of human resources technology, artificial intelligence (AI) plays a pivotal role, promising to streamline processes and enhance the efficiency of hiring practices. However, the integration of AI into these practices often sparks significant debate regarding fairness and discrimination. A recent example of this controversy involves Aon, a global professional services firm, whose AI-driven hiring assessment tools have come under scrutiny by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU's allegations against Aon, leading to a formal complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), underline a critical dialogue about the implications of AI in hiring.
The Basis of the ACLU’s Complaint
The ACLU has accused Aon of deceptively marketing its hiring assessment tools — specifically the Adept-15 personality assessment, the vidAssess-AI video interviewing tool, and the gridChallenge cognitive ability test — as bias-free and conducive to improving diversity in the workplace. According to the ACLU, these claims are not only misleading but also potentially unlawful, as the tools may perpetuate discrimination against job seekers based on race and disabilities such as autism, depression, and anxiety. These tools, which utilize algorithmic processes and AI, are said to evaluate candidates on traits like positivity, emotional awareness, and liveliness, which are often not directly relevant to job performance and may disproportionately affect individuals with certain disabilities.
Aon’s Defense and Industry Practices
In response to the ACLU's claims, Aon has defended its products by asserting that they are designed in compliance with legal and professional guidelines, including those set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Aon emphasizes that their tools are part of a broader array of assessments used by employers to make more inclusive hiring decisions. Moreover, Aon points to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of their tools, arguing that they are less discriminatory than traditional methods.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The controversy raises significant legal and ethical questions about the use of AI in employment. U.S. laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, mandate non-discriminatory practices in employment, covering all aspects from hiring to workplace accommodation. The ACLU's complaint to the FTC, an agency tasked with protecting America’s consumers and competition, suggests potential violations of these laws, framing the issue not only as one of employment discrimination but also of consumer deception.
Broader Industry Concerns
The ACLU's actions against Aon are part of a larger movement to scrutinize AI tools used for hiring. Critics argue that while these technologies offer the potential for unbiased decision-making, they often lack transparency and can inadvertently encode the biases of their developers or the data sets they are trained on. This issue is compounded by the proprietary nature of these tools, which prevents a thorough public assessment of their fairness and effectiveness.
Potential Repercussions and Reforms
The outcome of the ACLU’s complaint could have far-reaching implications for the HR technology industry. A decision by the FTC to investigate or sanction Aon could lead to more stringent regulations governing the development and use of AI in hiring, potentially setting a precedent for how similar tools are marketed and implemented across the industry. For companies that rely on these tools, the case may serve as a critical prompt to reevaluate their algorithms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, this case highlights the need for ongoing dialogue between technologists, legal experts, policymakers, and civil rights advocates to ensure that advancements in AI serve to enhance, rather than undermine, workplace equality. As AI continues to permeate various aspects of human resources, the development of standards and best practices that safeguard against discrimination and uphold ethical principles will be crucial.
Conclusion
The ACLU's complaint against Aon is a reminder of the complex interplay between innovation, regulation, and rights in the age of AI. While AI offers transformative potentials for HR, it also demands a cautious approach to prevent new forms of discrimination. This case may well become a landmark in the ongoing debate over AI ethics in hiring, urging all stakeholders to consider the broader implications of their technological choices. As the legal proceedings unfold, the HR technology industry will be watching closely, aware that the future of AI in hiring is now under a more discerning public and legal microscope.
discrimination
2024年06月06日
discrimination
美国一家IT人力资源公司因招聘信息中注明“仅限当地社区白人”申请，被求职者投诉种族歧视，被罚款概览：2023年3月，Arthur Grand Technologies发布了一则仅限“美国出生的白人公民”申请的招聘广告。经调查，这是一名心怀不满的员工报复公司的行为。公司总部位于弗吉尼亚州阿什本，是一家小型弱势企业。美国司法部和劳工部认定公司违反了相关法律，处以7500美元罚款，并向31名应聘者支付共计3.1万美元的赔偿金。公司否认批准广告，并称其为员工个人行为，已立即解雇该员工。首席执行官重申对多样性的承诺，并采取措施防止类似事件再发生。
本周，美国司法部和劳工部经调查后，对该公司处以7500美元的民事罚款，并命令其向31位应聘该职位的人，每人支付1000美元，总计3.1万美元的赔偿金。
经过调查，这起招聘启示的发布，竟然是该公司一位员工为了报复公司所为。
背景
2023年3月，Arthur Grand Technologies Inc.发布了一则招聘广告，明确要求“只有美国出生的公民(白人)”和居住在德州达拉斯60英里以内的人，才能申请“Salesforce业务分析师和保险理赔职位”。此外，招聘启事中还规定，求职者不得与其他候选人分享信息。
本周二（2024年5月28日），Arthur Grand Technologies Inc.与美国政府部门达成和解协议。根据协议，该公司将支付7500美元的民事罚款，并赔偿每位应聘者1000美元，总计3.1万美元。
公司背景
Arthur Grand Technologies Inc.是一家总部位于弗吉尼亚州阿什本的IT人力资源公司。公司的注册地址是一个两层楼的办公大楼，距离杜勒斯国际机场约10英里。根据美国政府的记录，该公司被认证为联邦承包商名录中的一家“小型弱势企业”。要获得这种资格，公司的大部分所有权必须归“一名或多名弱势人士”所有，这些人必须在社会和经济上处于弱势地位。
员工行为
司法部称，Arthur Grand Technologies Inc.否认公司批准了这条招聘信息，并称该信息是由一位“心怀不满的印度招聘人员”所发布，目的是让公司陷入麻烦。据悉，这位员工因处于绩效改进计划（PIP）中不满，于是为了报复公司，通过其个人电子邮件地址和账户发布了这则招聘。
法律依据
美国司法部认定，该公司违反了《移民和国籍法》，因为其发布了“只要求在美国出生的求职者”的招聘信息，非法地阻止了在美国境外出生的美国公民以及某些有资格工作的非公民申请岗位。与此同时，美国劳工部表示，经调查该公司违反了第11246号行政命令，该命令禁止联邦承包商在就业方面基于种族、肤色、宗教、性别、性取向、性别认同或国籍进行歧视。
司法部声明
司法部民权司助理司法部长Kristen Clarke宣布达成和解协议时表示：“在21世纪，我们仍然看到雇主使用‘仅限白人’和‘仅限美国出生’的招聘启事，排除其他符合条件的有色人种候选人，这是可耻的。司法部将与其他政府机构合作，继续追究雇主违反我国联邦民权法的责任。”
公司回应
Arthur Grand Technologies Inc.的首席执行官Sheik Rahmathullah表示，公司没有承认任何罪行或不法行为，同意司法部和劳工部协议，只是为了避免诉讼给公司带来的重大财务损失和长期业务中断。
Rahmathullah解释道：“这些协议不应被解释为公司承认有罪或有不当行为。引发舆论的招聘启事是‘未经授权发布的’。我们为公司所有高级领导职位都由有色人种担任，并且超过80%的员工是有色人种而感到自豪。”
他补充说道：“我们立刻采取了果断措施，确保这种事情不再发生，包括立即解雇负责的员工。对于此次事件造成的任何伤害，我们深表歉意，并承诺做出有意义的改变，以恢复我们社区和利益相关者的信任和信心。”
discrimination
2024年05月29日
discrimination
EEOC Issues Final Regulation on Pregnant Workers Fairness Act美国平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）发布了《怀孕工作者公平法案》（PWFA）的最终规则，该规则自2023年6月27日生效，要求15名以上员工的雇主为怀孕、分娩或相关医疗条件的员工提供合理的工作调整，除非这种调整给雇主带来过大困难。此规则进一步加强了1964年民权法案和美国残疾人法案下的保护措施，提供了关于合理调整、雇主责任及孕期工作者权利的更清晰指导。
Aids Implementation of Civil Rights Law Expanding Protections and Accommodations for Pregnant Workers
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), providing important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law. The PWFA requires most employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations,” or changes at work, for a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship.
The PWFA builds upon existing protections against pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC began accepting charges of discrimination on June 27, 2023, the day on which the PWFA became effective.
The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on Apr. 19. The final rule was approved by majority vote of the Commission on Apr. 3, 2024, and becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The final rule and its accompanying interpretative guidance reflect the EEOC’s deliberation and response to the approximately 100,000 public comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It provides clarity to employers and workers about who is covered, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, how individuals can request reasonable accommodations, and numerous concrete examples.
“The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a win for workers, families, and our economy. It gives pregnant workers clear access to reasonable accommodations that will allow them to keep doing their jobs safely and effectively, free from discrimination and retaliation,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “At the EEOC, we have assisted women who have experienced serious health risks and unimaginable loss simply because they could not access a reasonable accommodation on the job. This final rule provides important information and guidance to help employers meet their responsibilities, and to jobseekers and employees about their rights. It encourages employers and employees to communicate early and often, allowing them to identify and resolve issues in a timely manner.”
Highlights from the final regulation include:
· Numerous examples of reasonable accommodations such as additional breaks to drink water, eat, or use the restroom; a stool to sit on while working; time off for health care appointments; temporary reassignment; temporary suspension of certain job duties; telework; or time off to recover from childbirth or a miscarriage, among others.
· Guidance regarding limitations and medical conditions for which employees or applicants may seek reasonable accommodation, including miscarriage or still birth; migraines; lactation; and pregnancy-related conditions that are episodic, such as morning sickness. This guidance is based on Congress’s PWFA statutory language, the EEOC’s longstanding definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and court decisions interpreting the term “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions from Title VII.
· Guidance encouraging early and frequent communication between employers and workers to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.
· Clarification that an employer is not required to seek supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation and should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.
· Explanation of when an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer and its business.
· Information on how employers may assert defenses or exemptions, including those based on religion, as early as possible in charge processing.
More information about the PWFA and the EEOC’s final rule, including resources for employers and workers, is available on the EEOC’s “What You Should Know about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” webpage.
For more information on pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination.
The EEOC prevents and remedies unlawful employment discrimination and advances equal opportunity for all. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
discrimination
discrimination
discrimination
discrimination
discrimination
扫一扫
添加客服
