Skip to content

Menu

Network by SubjectChannelsBlogsHomeAboutContact
AI Legal Journal logo
Subscribe
Search
Close
PublishersBlogsNetwork by SubjectChannels
Subscribe

California’s New AI Employment Regulations Are Set To Go Into Effect On October 1, 2025

By Gregory Knopp, Jonathan Slowik & Michelle Lappen on August 4, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The California Civil Rights Council, which promulgates regulations that implement California’s civil rights laws, has published a new set of regulations concerning artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the workplace. These new rules (available here) are set to go into effect on October 1, 2025 and amend the existing regulatory framework of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). This latest round of regulations is continuing a trend of California policing AI in the workplace, as we have previously reported here and here.   

According to the Civil Rights Department, these regulations are needed because “[a]utomated-decision systems — which may rely on algorithms or artificial intelligence — are increasingly used in employment settings to facilitate a wide range of decisions related to job applicants or employees, including with respect to recruitment, hiring, and promotion … [and] can also exacerbate existing biases and contribute to discriminatory outcomes.” Such “automated-decision systems” are defined as computational processes that make a decision or facilitate human decision-making regarding an employment benefit, which may be derived from and/or use artificial intelligence, machine-learning, algorithms, statistics, and/or other data processing techniques.

These regulations attempt to clarify the application of existing anti-discrimination employment laws (i.e., FEHA) in the context of AI. Among other changes, the regulations:

  • Broadly define an “agent” of an employer, such as companies hired to recruit and screen applicants, to be an “employer” under the FEHA.
  • Require employers to keep records of their automated decision systems data (such as data provided by or about individual applicants or employees, or data reflecting employment decisions or outcomes) for at least four years.
  • Affirm that automated-decision system assessments, including tests, questions, or puzzle games that elicit information about a disability, may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry.
  • Specify that it is unlawful for an employer or other covered entity (e.g., an agent) to use an automated-decision system or selection criteria that discriminates against an applicant or employee or a class of applicants or employees on a basis protected by the FEHA, such as gender, race, or disability.
  • Provide that an employer’s anti-bias testing (or lack thereof) and any response to the results of such testing, and other similar proactive efforts to avoid unlawful discrimination, are “relevant” to an employer’s defense against such claims.

Thus, with limited exceptions (such as the definition of “agent” and new recordkeeping requirements), the regulations are largely declarative of existing law, applied to new technologies. In other words, these regulations make clear that in cases of alleged disparate impacts against protected classes, it will be no defense to say, “the AI did it.”

We will continue to monitor how California applies anti-discrimination laws to the use of AI in employment decisions.

Photo of Gregory Knopp Gregory Knopp

Gregory (Greg) Knopp is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department in the Los Angeles office.

Greg defends companies in class and collective actions and other complex disputes. He has argued successfully before state and federal courts across the country and…

Gregory (Greg) Knopp is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department in the Los Angeles office.

Greg defends companies in class and collective actions and other complex disputes. He has argued successfully before state and federal courts across the country and has obtained dismissals of class actions in dozens of high-profile, highly consequential matters.

Greg’s clients range from entertainment companies to prominent retailers to professional sports leagues. He has also worked with financial services and other professional services firms, along with clients in the technology, transportation and healthcare spaces. All look to Greg for his ability to quickly spot legal issues and to determine strategies to maximize advantage.

With more than 20 years of experience in employment litigation, Greg has represented clients in a wide range of employment disputes involving wage and hour issues, issues specific to California employment law, sexual harassment, and arbitration compulsion.

Read more about Gregory Knopp
Show more Show less
Photo of Jonathan Slowik Jonathan Slowik

Jonathan Slowik is a special counsel in the Labor Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Counseling Group.

Read more about Jonathan Slowik
Photo of Michelle Lappen Michelle Lappen

Michelle Lappen is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. She assists clients in a wide range of labor and employment matters in a variety of industries, including entertainment, financial services, and…

Michelle Lappen is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. She assists clients in a wide range of labor and employment matters in a variety of industries, including entertainment, financial services, and technology.

Michelle earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School, where she was an articles and submissions editor for the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. During law school, she also was a teaching fellow for the Advanced Negotiation Workshop and advocated for state and federal legislation as a clinical student in the Columbia Law Health Justice Advocacy Clinic.

Read more about Michelle Lappen
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    California Employment Law Update
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog logo
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog. All Rights Reserved.
Legal content Portal by LexBlog LexBlog Logo