Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Automated Decision Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civil Rights Council approves notice of first modified text for automated decision-system employment rules
Summary
The Civil Rights Council voted unanimously to publish first modified rule text addressing automated decision systems in employment and move it into a public comment period; staff said the council expects to provide a 30‑day comment window. Public commenters urged stronger disclosure, human oversight, and protections for people with disabilities.
The Civil Rights Council voted unanimously to publish a first modified draft of proposed employment regulations on automated decision systems (ADS) and to notice the package for public comment.
Councilmembers Hong and Glater presented the modified text and asked the council to approve Attachment B for publication. Council staff said the initial text was first published May 17, 2024, and a public hearing was held July 18, 2024. A staff speaker advised the council has discretion to provide more than the minimum 15 days for public comment and said the council expects to provide a 30‑day period once the notice publishes.
Adam Romero, Deputy Director of Executive Programs at the California Civil Rights Department, introduced the item and briefed the council on the rulemaking process. Public commenters — including the Center for AI and Digital Policy, disability advocates, employer groups and technology trade associations — urged changes or flagged concerns.
Nidhi Senha, representing the Center for AI and Digital Policy, recommended “clear disclosure requirements where automated decision systems are being used for employment decisions, establish simple mechanisms and human oversight requirements, require bias audits or impact assessments as a precondition to deployment, and align the definition of automated decision system with similar regulations at both the state and federal level.”
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund told the council the draft definition of “adverse impact” could exclude screen‑out discrimination claims affecting people with disabilities because statistical comparisons are often unavailable; Claudia Center said that approach “does not work for us” and asked the council to revise the definition to capture how screen‑outs operate for disabled applicants.
Industry groups including the California Chamber of Commerce, TechNet and Internet Works said the draft definitions of ADS and of “agent” may be overbroad and signaled they will resubmit written comments. Several speakers welcomed the council’s extension of the comment window beyond the statutory minimum.
The council moved, seconded and approved publication of the first modified text for public notice. Roll call returned unanimous “Aye” votes. Staff directed participants to resubmit written comments once the formal notice issues so comments will be included in the rulemaking record.
The next procedural step is publication of the notice and the formal comment period; staff indicated the council intends to offer a 30‑day comment window, with exact dates to be provided in the notice.
