Confirm jurisdiction
Use declared job, work, candidate, and employer locations where relevant. ProofOfFit should not infer a person's legal status or protected characteristics from hidden profiling.
Jurisdiction-aware hiring AI
Different legal systems require different workflow controls.
ProofOfFit does not treat “compliance” as one global switch. It keeps product policy separate from jurisdiction-specific requirements, records the authority and review date for supported profiles, and sends consequential employer workflows to review when coverage or applicability is uncertain.
This page is product guidance, not legal advice. Applicability can depend on the employer, worker, job location, candidate location, feature used, decision being made, and other facts.
Classify the workflow
Candidate assistance, evidence transformation, employer decision support, verification/reporting, and autonomous consequential action do not carry the same risk or legal obligations.
Fail safely when unknown
Unknown law does not become permission. Candidate assistance may continue with integrity controls; consequential employer use remains review-required until the relevant profile is verified.
Sourced reference profiles
These profiles are deliberately narrow. They describe selected employment-AI controls that ProofOfFit can currently cite to an authoritative source; they do not represent exhaustive legal coverage of a country, state, province, or city.
United States — federal employment discrimination baseline
Existing employment discrimination law still applies when AI is used
Federal employment discrimination law continues to govern recruiting and hiring. EEOC guidance specifically warns that AI and algorithmic tools can screen out people with disabilities and emphasizes reasonable-accommodation safeguards.
Candidate
If a tool creates a disability-related barrier, federal law may require a reasonable accommodation. ProofOfFit's correction path is an additional product safeguard and is not a substitute for legal rights.
Employer / hirer
Use job-related criteria, provide an accommodation process, assess whether a tool can screen out qualified people with disabilities, keep accommodation information out of selection signals, and preserve accountable human review.
United States — FCRA employment reporting risk
Third-party employment reports can trigger Fair Credit Reporting Act duties
If a company compiles or furnishes qualifying information about a person to an employer for an employment decision, the Fair Credit Reporting Act may apply. ProofOfFit therefore treats verification/reporting as a separate gated workflow rather than assuming ordinary hiring-software rules are enough.
Candidate
If a covered consumer report is used for employment, federal law can provide notice, authorization, accuracy, dispute, and adverse-action protections. The exact ProofOfFit workflow must be classified before these rights are represented as applicable.
Employer / hirer
Do not activate third-party verification/reporting until FCRA and consumer-reporting-agency applicability, permissible purpose, disclosure and authorization, accuracy, dispute, and adverse-action responsibilities have been reviewed.
New York City — Local Law 144 AEDT
Covered AEDT use requires a bias audit, public information, and notices
When a tool meets New York City's AEDT definition and is used for covered employment decisions, the employer or employment agency must satisfy the law's audit and notice conditions before use.
Candidate
For covered use, candidates should receive advance notice and instructions for requesting an alternative selection process or reasonable accommodation where applicable.
Employer / hirer
Do not activate covered AEDT use until applicability, a current independent bias audit, required public summary, notices, and data-use disclosures are verified.
Illinois — Human Rights Act AI employment provisions
Employment AI notice and anti-discrimination requirements
Illinois prohibits covered employment AI use that has a discriminatory effect based on protected classes and prohibits use of ZIP codes as a proxy for protected classes; employer notice requirements also apply.
Candidate
Illinois law now regulates discriminatory effects from employment AI and includes an employer notice requirement; the implementing rules determine notice circumstances, timing, and means. ProofOfFit should show the notice state without inventing details the rule has not established.
Employer / hirer
Verify the applicable Illinois notice rules, do not use ZIP code as a proxy for protected classes, and review the workflow for discriminatory effects before relying on it.
Colorado — automated decision-making technology
Prepare for Colorado's reenacted ADMT requirements
Colorado's 2026 legislation establishes requirements for automated decision-making technology used to influence consequential decisions in covered domains, including employment, beginning January 1, 2027.
Candidate
Before the 2027 effective date, ProofOfFit should surface which employment workflows may be covered and preserve understandable review and correction paths.
Employer / hirer
Treat 2026 as a readiness period: classify covered workflows, preserve required documentation, and complete legal review before the January 1, 2027 effective date.
European Union — GDPR automated decision-making
Solely automated significant decisions receive special safeguards
GDPR Article 22 provides a right not to be subject to certain decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling, that produce legal or similarly significant effects. Exceptions and safeguards are fact-specific, and other GDPR duties can still apply to AI-assisted employment processing.
Candidate
For covered solely automated significant decisions, GDPR safeguards can include human intervention, an opportunity to express a point of view, and the ability to contest the decision. ProofOfFit's own baseline is stricter: autonomous consequential employment action is currently prohibited.
Employer / hirer
Assess lawful basis, transparency, data minimization, special-category data, DPIA needs, and Article 22 before consequential employment processing. Human review must be meaningful rather than ceremonial.
European Union — AI Act employment use
Employment AI can fall within Annex III high-risk use cases
AI used for recruitment, application filtering, candidate evaluation, or other employment decisions can fall within Annex III high-risk use cases, subject to Article 6 classification rules. The high-risk obligations for Annex III systems apply from December 2, 2027.
Candidate
AI-assisted employment processes should remain transparent, reviewable, and correctable; applicable privacy and employment rights continue to operate alongside the AI Act.
Employer / hirer
Classify the actual use case rather than the marketing label, document whether Article 6 high-risk criteria apply, and build toward the high-risk obligations before December 2, 2027.
European Union — AI Act transparency
Certain AI transparency duties are already applicable
Article 50 transparency duties for certain AI systems apply from August 2, 2026; applicability depends on the specific system and interaction.
Candidate
Where an applicable transparency duty is triggered, users should be told when they are interacting with AI or receiving covered AI-generated content.
Employer / hirer
Keep AI-use disclosures scoped to the actual feature and verify Article 50 applicability before deployment.
What ProofOfFit will not automate
ProofOfFit's current product policy prohibits autonomous rejection, hiring, advancement, or equivalent consequential employment action. Jurisdiction-specific law can add controls; it does not weaken this baseline.