Sponsors (7)
Official title: Prohibit certain uses of automated decision systems by employers, and for other purposes.
Introduced June 18, 2026 by Edward John Markey · Last progress June 18, 2026
The bill substantially strengthens worker rights, transparency, and oversight of workplace automated decision systems—reducing bias and improving accountability—but does so at the cost of materially higher compliance, legal uncertainty, administrative burdens, and fiscal commitments that could slow adoption and favor larger firms.
Workers and job applicants gain clearer legal protections and enforcement: the bill defines covered individuals and adverse actions, creates opt-outs and human-review rights, forbids retaliation for reporting, and establishes private and DOL/state enforcement pathways (including damages and injunctive relief).
People in protected groups face stronger safeguards against biased automated decisions because the bill requires disparate-impact identification and mitigation, certification that systems won't chill organizing, and routine performance reviews to detect and correct bias.
Employees, applicants, and the public get greater transparency and accountability: employers and developers must disclose ADS details, produce predeployment reports and annual assessments, publish summaries, and a new DOL office will monitor employer data practices and provide oversight.
Small businesses, startups, and employers face substantial new compliance costs and administrative burdens (testing, documentation, disclosures, human-review options, certifications, recordkeeping and staffing), which could increase operating costs, slow hiring, and raise prices.
Employers face increased litigation exposure and legal uncertainty because of broad definitions, employer-as-developer liability, overlapping state/federal authority, limits on arbitration waivers, and novel compliance requirements—likely raising legal costs and disputes.
High compliance burdens may chill innovation and concentrate market power: smaller developers and startups could be priced out or deterred from entering markets, advantaging large firms that can absorb regulatory costs and slowing technological adoption.
Based on analysis of 14 sections of legislative text.
Restricts employers' use of automated decision systems in hiring and employment, requires disclosure, predeployment evaluations and certifications, creates a DOL enforcement office, and funds implementation.
Prohibits employers from predominantly relying on automated decision systems (ADS) for hiring, firing, discipline, scheduling, promotion, pay, and other adverse work actions, and requires disclosures, predeployment evaluations, safety certifications, operator training, and human-review alternatives. Creates a Fairness and Transparency Office at the Department of Labor, authorizes enforcement powers and a private right of action, and funds implementation with annual appropriations for ten years. Developers and employers must assess and report how ADS tools work, their inputs, performance, risks (including discrimination and effects on worker rights), consult stakeholders, mitigate harms, and certify that deployment will not threaten worker privacy, health, dignity, or protected activity; covered employees and applicants can opt for human review instead of ADS-driven decisions.