Automated Employment Decision Tools and the Kronos Biometric Case
Automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) use AI and analytics to score, classify, or recommend hiring and promotion decisions, raising bias concerns that New York City's Local Law 144 addresses through audit and notice requirements. The Kronos case shows that a biometric-device can be held liable under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) when fingerprint timeclocks are deployed without proper employee Consent.
Automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) are software or AI systems built on machine learning, analytics, or statistical models that score, classify, or recommend hiring or promotion decisions. They substantially assist or replace human judgment. Common examples include screening resumes or analyzing video-interview speech and facial expressions. Because these tools can encode and amplify historical patterns, they raise significant bias concerns.
Employers using AEDTs in New York City must do three things: (1) have a bias audit conducted, (2) publish the audit results, and (3) notify candidates that an AEDT is used and inform them of any alternative process.
The Kronos case study illustrates biometric liability. Kronos, a timeclock vendor, was sued under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) over fingerprint-scanning timeclocks used without proper employee consent. As the device supplier, Kronos was held accountable under BIPA even though it was not the employer.
Kronos settled for $15.28 million, with class members receiving roughly $290 to $580 each. The lesson: obtain explicit consent and follow biometric data laws before deploying biometric technology in the workplace. A vendor that supplies the biometric device can face direct liability under BIPA.