Introduction
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [1] [2] [3], in collaboration with Public Justice and Eisenberg & Baum, LLP [1], has initiated legal action against Intuit and HireVue, alleging discriminatory practices in their AI interviewing tools. This case highlights the growing concern over the use of artificial intelligence in employment processes, particularly its impact on marginalized groups.
Description
The American Civil Liberties Union [1] [2] [3], along with Public Justice and Eisenberg & Baum [1], LLP [1], has filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Intuit and HireVue [2] [3], alleging violations of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act [1], the Americans with Disabilities Act [1], and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act [1]. The complaint [1] [2] [3], brought on behalf of D.K. [1], an Indigenous and Deaf employee [1], claims that an AI interviewing tool used by Intuit discriminated against her during the promotion application process due to her disability and race.
The complaint asserts that the HireVue video interviewing platform [2] [3], which evaluates candidates based on performance [2] [3], lacked subtitles for certain audible portions [2] [3], and D.K.’s request for human-generated captioning was denied [2] [3]. Despite her positive feedback and bonuses received during her employment in seasonal roles since 2019, she was ultimately rejected for the promotion. The automated speech recognition systems used by Intuit assigned her low scores, which the company was aware could adversely affect Deaf employees [1]. Instead of addressing these issues [1], Intuit reassigned her to a role that limited her communication with customers [1], despite her strong performance in phone interactions.
The AI-generated feedback D.K. received suggested she “practice active listening,” which the ACLU contends illustrates how her hearing disability disadvantaged her in the process [2] [3]. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the platform had a disparate impact based on race [2] [3]. This lawsuit is part of a growing trend [2] [3], as previous cases have also challenged the use of AI interviewing software under employment protection statutes [3]. For instance [2] [3], a 2023 lawsuit against CVS involved claims that a video interviewing platform [2] [3], which assessed applicants on traits such as reliability and honesty [3], violated a Massachusetts law prohibiting lie detector tests as a condition of employment [2] [3]. After surviving a motion to dismiss [2] [3], the parties reached a settlement [2] [3], and other plaintiffs have since filed similar lawsuits under the same Massachusetts statute [2] [3]. Eisenberg & Baum emphasized the need for accountability in the use of AI technologies [1], advocating for fairness and inclusivity in AI-based hiring tools [1], particularly for marginalized groups such as Deaf [1], disabled [1], and Indigenous individuals [1].
Conclusion
This case underscores the critical need for accountability and fairness in the deployment of AI technologies in hiring processes. It highlights the potential for AI tools to inadvertently perpetuate discrimination, particularly against marginalized groups [1]. As legal challenges continue to emerge, there is a growing call for more inclusive and equitable AI systems that ensure fair treatment for all candidates, regardless of their race, disability [1] [2] [3], or other protected characteristics.
References
[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/medicaid-work-requirements-dont-work-they-harm-people-with-disabilities
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/another-legal-challenge-to-an-ai-8980113/
[3] https://natlawreview.com/article/another-legal-challenge-ai-interviewing-tool
