Reference · Employment

Employment AI Laws: Illinois HB 3773, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado SB 26-189

Three statutes, one question: where does AI touch an employment decision?

Last reviewed October 11, 2026

Three US jurisdictions regulate the use of AI in employment decisions directly. Illinois's amendment to its Human Rights Act, HB 3773, has been in effect since 1 January 2026.HB 3773 status New York City has enforced Local Law 144 on automated employment decision tools since 5 July 2023.DCWP Colorado's SB 26-189, signed on 14 May 2026, replaced the state's 2024 AI Act and applies to consequential decisions made on or after 1 January 2027.SB 26-189 · Section 5 All three require notice to the people affected; New York City adds a bias audit, and Colorado adds correction, human review and three-year records.

Illinois: AI with a discriminatory effect is a civil rights violation

Public Act 103-0804, enacted from HB 3773 and approved on 9 August 2024, added subsection (L) to Section 2-102 of the Illinois Human Rights Act.HB 3773 status It is a civil rights violation for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges or conditions of employment. Using zip codes as a proxy for protected classes is a violation too.Public Act 103-0804 · 2-102(L)(1)

It is also a violation to fail to give an employee notice that the employer is using AI for those purposes, and the Act's definition of artificial intelligence includes generative AI.Public Act 103-0804 · 2-102(L)(2), 2-101(M) The Department of Human Rights is directed to adopt rules on when notice is required, the time period for giving it and the means. As of 11 October 2026, the Department's rules in Part 2520 of the Illinois Administrative Code contain no AI notice provision.56 Ill. Adm. Code 2520

New York City: a bias audit within a year, and notice ten business days ahead

An automated employment decision tool is one used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making for employment decisions, meaning the screening of candidates for employment or employees for promotion within the city.Local Law 144 · § 20-870 The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection's rule narrows substantially assist or replace to three cases: relying solely on the tool's simplified output, weighting that output more than any other criterion, or using it to overrule conclusions drawn from other factors, human decision-making included.DCWP rule · § 5-300 An employer using such a tool must:

Have a bias audit, an impartial evaluation by an independent auditor, conducted no more than one year before the tool is used.Local Law 144 · § 20-870, 20-871(a)(1)
Publish a summary of the most recent audit's results and the tool's distribution date on the employment section of its website.Local Law 144 · § 20-871(a)(2)DCWP rule · § 5-303
Give each candidate or employee who resides in the city notice at least ten business days before use that the tool will be used and which job qualifications and characteristics it will assess, and allow a request for an alternative selection process or accommodation.Local Law 144 · § 20-871(b)(1), (2)
Post, or provide within 30 days of a written request, the type and source of the data collected and the data retention policy.Local Law 144 · § 20-871(b)(3)

Penalties run to $500 for a first violation and each additional violation on the same day, and $500 to $1,500 for each later one. Each day a tool is used in violation is a separate violation.Local Law 144 · § 20-872

The State Comptroller found New York City's enforcement relies on complaints that rarely arrive

The Department has enforced the law and its rule since 5 July 2023.DCWP In an audit released on 2 December 2025, covering July 2023 to June 2025, the New York State Comptroller found the Department's complaint process for these tools ineffective. The Department received two complaints in that period. Its own review of 32 employers' websites and bias audits found one issue of non-compliance; the auditors reviewed the same employers and identified at least 17 instances of potential non-compliance.NY Comptroller audit

Colorado: notice, correction and human review from 1 January 2027

SB 26-189 repealed and re-enacted Part 17 of Article 1 of Title 6, C.R.S., the part the 2024 AI Act created, as a set of rules for automated decision-making technology used in consequential decisions. The Governor signed it on 14 May 2026. Its main provisions take effect on 1 January 2027 and apply to consequential decisions made on or after that date.SB 26-189 · Sections 1, 5 Employment is a covered domain, and a consumer includes an employee and a job applicant who is a Colorado resident.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1701(4), (6) An employer that uses covered technology to materially influence such a decision must:

Give clear and conspicuous notice, before use, that the technology is used in consequential decisions; a prominent public notice at points of interaction satisfies the duty.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1704(1), (2)
Within thirty days of a decision with an adverse outcome, give a plain-language description of the decision and the role the technology played, with a simple process to request more, including the tool's name, version and developer and the types and sources of personal data used.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1704(3)
On request after an adverse outcome, give instructions for correcting factually incorrect or materially inaccurate personal data, and an opportunity for meaningful human review and reconsideration to the extent commercially reasonable. Opinions, predictions, scores and protected evaluations are outside the correction right.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1705(1)
Keep the records reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance for at least three years after each consequential decision, which may include version identifiers, changelogs and documentation of material mitigation changes.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1703

The Attorney General enforces the part exclusively, a violation is a deceptive trade practice, and there is no new private right of action; until 1 January 2030 a 60-day cure period applies where the Attorney General considers a cure possible.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1706 The deemed-compliance route for insurers covers the practice of insurance and leaves insurer employment decisions in scope, and the exemption for HIPAA covered entities excludes consequential decisions about employment.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1708

Colorado's rules are due before the act applies

The act requires the Attorney General to adopt rules before 1 January 2027 on the disclosures after an adverse outcome and on the consumer rights. The Attorney General's office filed proposed rules on 11 August 2026, released an interim draft on 6 October 2026, and takes written comments through the rulemaking hearing on 26 October 2026.Colorado AG Until 1 January 2027, Colorado obligations are readiness work.

The three laws side by side

Requirement	Illinois	New York City	Colorado
In effect	1 January 2026	Enforced since 5 July 2023	Decisions on or after 1 January 2027
Who is covered	Employees, from recruitment to discharge	Candidates and employees for promotion, within the city	Employees and Colorado-resident job applicants
Notice	To employees that AI is used	At least ten business days before use	Before use, and within 30 days of an adverse outcome
Audit	None in the statute	Independent bias audit within one year before use	None in the act
Alternatives and review	None in the statute	Alternative selection process or accommodation on request	Data correction and human review on request after an adverse outcome
Enforcement	Civil rights violation under the Human Rights Act	Civil penalties of up to $1,500 per violation	Attorney General, as a deceptive trade practice

Sources: 775 ILCS 5/2-102(L); New York City Administrative Code §§ 20-870 to 20-872 and 6 RCNY §§ 5-300 to 5-304; Colorado SB 26-189, C.R.S. 6-1-1701 to 6-1-1708. Status as of 11 October 2026.

The EU AI Act treats AI used in recruitment, selection, promotion, termination and performance monitoring as high-risk. From 2 December 2027, an employer deploying such a system must inform workers' representatives and the affected workers before putting it to use at the workplace.AI Act · Annex III, 4; Art. 26(7)Digital Omnibus · Art. 1(40) A multinational employer meets the same notice and record questions from a fourth regulator.

Control mapping

What a reviewer expects to be able to see.

Obligation	What the system must do	Evidence a reviewer expects
Inventory	Identify every tool that uses AI in recruitment, hiring, promotion and discipline, the vendor behind it, and the jurisdictions where it is used	Inventory with tool purpose, decision stage, vendor, version, and jurisdictions in scope
Notice	Tell applicants and employees that AI is used, with the timing and content each statute sets	Notice text, delivery records, and dates
Bias audit (NYC)	Obtain an independent bias audit within a year before use and publish a summary with the distribution date	Audit report, auditor independence, publication date
Proxy variables (Illinois)	Show zip codes are not used as a proxy for protected classes	Feature documentation and data-flow records
Record-keeping (Colorado, from 2027)	Keep the records needed to demonstrate compliance for three years after each consequential decision	Dated decision records with tool version identifiers and changelogs
Correction and human review (Colorado, from 2027)	After an adverse outcome, correct inaccurate personal data and offer meaningful human review on request	Request log, review procedure, and its operating records

Key dates

Timeline, drawn to scale

Employment AI laws: when each applies

In effect as of October 11, 2026UpcomingObligations take effect

Dates from the Illinois HB 3773 bill status, DCWP and Colorado SB 26-189 as signed. Status as of October 11, 2026.

5 July 2023New York City begins enforcing Local Law 144.
17 May 2024Colorado SB 24-205, the 2024 Colorado AI Act, signed.
9 August 2024Illinois HB 3773 approved as Public Act 103-0804.
2 December 2025New York State Comptroller releases its audit of Local Law 144 enforcement.
1 January 2026Illinois amendments to the Human Rights Act take effect.
14 May 2026Colorado SB 26-189 signed, replacing the 2024 Colorado AI Act.
11 August 2026Colorado Attorney General files proposed rules under SB 26-189.
26 October 2026Colorado Attorney General's rulemaking hearing and comment deadline.
1 January 2027Colorado SB 26-189 applies to consequential decisions made on or after this date.

Sources cited

Common gaps

Where employers most often struggle.

Vendor tools nobody classified. Applicant tracking systems ship ranking features that can meet the New York City definition. If nobody decided whether the feature is an automated employment decision tool, the audit clock never started.
Notice with no delivery record. A notice template on the careers page does not show that a specific candidate received notice ten business days before the tool ran.
An audit older than a year. Local Law 144 requires the bias audit no more than one year before use. A tool still in use eighteen months after its last audit has been out of compliance since the year ended.
Colorado planned against the repealed text. SB 26-189 repealed and re-enacted the part of the statute the 2024 AI Act created. The duties that apply from 1 January 2027 are notice, post-decision disclosure, correction, human review and three-year records.SB 26-189 · 6-1-1703 to 6-1-1705
Colorado treated as already in force. SB 26-189 applies to consequential decisions made on or after 1 January 2027. A claim of compliance with it today invites the question of what the claim rests on.

In practice

How Meilynx maps to the employment-AI statutes →

Last reviewed October 11, 2026. This reference summarises publicly available regulatory guidance and is provided for general information. It is not legal advice. Obligations depend on an institution's charter, registration status, size, and activities. Verify against the primary sources cited above and consult counsel before relying on any summary here.