Industry · HR and employment
Evidence for the AI that screens, ranks, and recommends people.
Illinois HB 3773, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado SB 26-189 each ask an employer to know where AI touches an employment decision, to notify the people affected, and to keep records that survive a complaint or an audit. Meilynx produces the traffic-level evidence for that slice.
Four questions every hr and employment examiner asks about AI.
Bias audit and notice is the reflex. These are the requests the evidence has to answer.
01
An inventory of AI in employment decisions
Which tools screen, score, or rank candidates and employees, and which vendors sit behind them. Colorado's readiness obligations start here.
02
Notice and record-keeping
Illinois and NYC expect notice when AI is used and records that show it. A dated, tamper-evident record of when the system ran is the backbone.
03
Bias audit evidence
Local Law 144 requires an independent bias audit. Meilynx evidences that the audit exists and which system it covers; it never performs one.
04
Proxy variable exposure
Illinois names zip codes as a proxy for protected class. Detection findings show which personal data actually reached the model.
Named regulations, with a control mapping for each.
Presets ship in the product for each framework below. Each page walks the requirement, the Meilynx control, and the artifact.
Evidence in your regulator's vocabulary.
Meilynx evidences the AI-traffic slice of these obligations. Bias audits, notices, and the written policies are employer acts, attested in the package. Colorado is always framed as readiness ahead of its 2027 effective date.
In the package
- AI inventory for employment decisions, populated from traffic
- Personal-data detection findings per tool and vendor
- Tamper-evident record of each AI-supported decision with timestamps
- Employment-AI evidence package with statute-shaped attestation fields
Who we work with
Who reads the evidence
HR and employment and the proxy.
Does this satisfy NYC Local Law 144?
No product does on its own. The law requires an independent bias audit and public notice. Meilynx records which automated employment decision tools ran, when, and against which data, and carries the audit attestation in the same package.
We are not in Illinois, New York, or Colorado. Why does this matter?
Because your candidates may be, and because the EU AI Act classes employment AI as high risk. The inventory and record-keeping evidence is the same regardless of which statute asks first.
Can we run this alongside the finance presets?
Yes. The employment-AI preset is a use case every regulated employer has. Banks and insurers activate it alongside their industry presets.
See the evidence on your own traffic
A 15-minute walkthrough of inline enforcement, the audit chain, and the examination package.