Compliant AI Hiring in 2026: What the Ohio, NYC, and Illinois Laws Actually Require (and How to Screen Candidates)

Three jurisdictions have now put real teeth behind AI hiring regulation, and a fourth is moving through committee. The patchwork is not theoretical: New York City began enforcement of its automated employment decision tool law in July 2023, Illinois expanded its AI employment rules on January 1, 2026, and Ohio introduced House Bill 828 in April 2026. Each law has a different shape, different scope, and different consequences for non-compliance.

Recruiters using HireVue, Paradox, Harver, or similar scoring-based tools are the primary audience for this regulation. But the laws are written broadly enough that any algorithm producing a score, rank, or recommendation that influences a hiring decision potentially falls within scope.

This guide covers what each law actually says (sourced from primary legislation), how they differ, and what the shared compliance pattern looks like in practice.

Key Takeaways

• NYC Local Law 144 is already in force: it requires an independent bias audit and 10-business-day candidate notice before using any AEDT
• Illinois now has two separate AI employment statutes: the Video Interview Act (effective 2020) and HB 3773's Human Rights Act amendments (effective January 1, 2026)
• Ohio HB 828 is proposed but not yet enacted - it is in committee as of May 2026
• All three enacted frameworks converge on the same three requirements: human review, candidate notification, and an opt-out alternative assessment
• Tools that evaluate candidates without generating automated scores or classifications are structurally outside the laws' scope

What the Laws Actually Cover: Understanding AEDT Definitions

Before reviewing each law, it helps to understand what triggers them. All three frameworks center on a similar concept: a computational process that produces a simplified output (score, ranking, classification, recommendation) used to make or assist an employment decision.

NYC Local Law 144 defines an automated employment decision tool as "any computational process, derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence, that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making for employment decisions."

The phrase "substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making" is the operative test. A tool that surfaces a ranked shortlist for a recruiter to review qualifies. A tool that simply collects candidate responses for a human reviewer to evaluate does not.

Ohio's proposed HB 828 uses nearly identical language. Illinois's HB 3773 focuses on discriminatory effect rather than defining "AEDT" explicitly.

This definitional gap matters for how employers select and configure tools.

New York City Local Law 144 of 2021

Official name: New York City Local Law 144 of 2021

Enacted: November 10, 2021

Effective date: January 1, 2023

Enforcement began: July 5, 2023

Jurisdiction: New York City employers with employees or candidates in New York City

Enforcement agency: NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)

What It Requires

NYC LL 144 imposes two parallel obligations on employers and employment agencies that use an AEDT in New York City:

1. Bias audit (before deployment)

The AEDT must be subject to an independent bias audit conducted by a third party before it is used. The audit must assess the tool for disparate impact on race, ethnicity, and sex. Results of the audit, including the date it was conducted and the results broken down by protected category, must be published publicly on the employer's website for at least six months.

2. Candidate notice

Employers must notify applicants and employees who reside in New York City at least 10 business days before the AEDT is used in their assessment. The notice must disclose that an AEDT is being used, identify which qualifications or characteristics it assesses, and provide instructions for how the candidate can request an alternative selection process or accommodation.

What It Does Not Cover

LL 144 applies only when the tool is used to evaluate candidates or employees who are located in New York City. It does not apply to tools used only for resume parsing without scoring, scheduling software, or tools that assist human decision-making without generating a score.

Enforcement Status

The NYC Comptroller's office released an audit in December 2025 reviewing DCWP's enforcement of LL 144 and found that enforcement was still limited relative to the estimated number of employers likely using AEDTs. The law is in active effect, but many employers have not conducted audits or provided notices.

Illinois: Two Separate AI Employment Laws

Illinois has enacted two distinct laws governing AI in hiring, and they apply to different tools.

The Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act

Official name: Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act

Enacted: August 9, 2019 (Public Act 101-0260)

Effective date: January 1, 2020

Amended: January 1, 2022 (added demographic reporting)

Jurisdiction: Illinois employers using AI to analyze recorded video interviews

This is the narrower of the two laws. It applies specifically when an employer asks a job applicant to record a video interview and uses artificial intelligence to analyze that video.

Core requirements:

• Notify each applicant before the interview that AI may be used to analyze the recording
• Provide information explaining how the AI works and what characteristics it evaluates
• Obtain the applicant's consent before the interview is conducted
• Share videos only with persons whose expertise or technology is necessary to evaluate the applicant
• Delete applicant videos within 30 days of a deletion request

Amendment added January 2022: Employers who rely solely on AI analysis of video to determine whether an applicant advances to an in-person interview must collect and report demographic data on applicants selected and not selected through that process.

What this law does not cover: It applies only to AI analysis of video recordings. It does not govern other AI-based screening tools, written response analysis, or test scoring.

Illinois HB 3773 (Human Rights Act Amendment)

Official name: Illinois HB 3773, amending the Illinois Human Rights Act

Signed: August 9, 2024

Effective date: January 1, 2026

Jurisdiction: Illinois employers

This is the broader law. It amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to expressly prohibit employers from using AI in employment decisions in any way that has the effect of discriminating against individuals on the basis of a protected class.

Covered decisions: Recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment.

Key prohibitions:

• Employers cannot use AI tools that produce discriminatory outcomes, even if the discrimination is not intentional
• Employers cannot use zip codes as a proxy for protected characteristics in AI-driven decisions
• Employers who use regulated AI must notify employees that AI is being used for that purpose

Notice rules: The Illinois Department of Human Rights is responsible for adopting rules specifying when notice is required, the timeframe, and the method. Draft rules were released in late 2025; final rules were expected to be in place before the January 1, 2026 effective date.

Enforcement: The Illinois Human Rights Commission and Department of Human Rights handle complaints. The law applies the same anti-discrimination standard as existing protected-class employment law; disparate impact, not just intentional discrimination, creates liability.

Ohio House Bill 828 (Proposed - Not Yet Law)

Official name: Ohio House Bill 828

Introduced: April 21, 2026

Status as of May 2026: In committee, 136th Ohio General Assembly

Sponsors: Rep. Ismail Mohamed (D-Columbus) and Rep. Veronica Sims (D-Akron)

Jurisdiction: Ohio employers (if enacted)

Ohio HB 828 is a proposed bill, not an enacted law. Employers in Ohio do not have current compliance obligations under it, and the bill's trajectory through committee is uncertain.

That said, it is worth tracking because its structure mirrors NYC LL 144 closely, and the Ohio Spectrum News article cited in the original brief describes it accurately as a bill "seeking to regulate" AEDTs, not as existing law.

What HB 828 proposes:

• Employers, employment agencies, and staffing firms could not use an AEDT as the sole basis for an employment decision; a human reviewer must check the tool's output
• Employers must notify workers and job applicants in writing at least 10 days before using AI in a covered decision
• Employers must accept requests from applicants for an alternative evaluation process that does not use AI

Definition used: A computational process using machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence to produce simplified outputs (scores, recommendations) used in hiring, promotion, retention, or discipline decisions.

This section will be updated if the bill advances to vote or is enacted.

Three Things Every Enacted Law Agrees On

Looking across the three enacted frameworks (NYC LL 144, Illinois AI Video Interview Act, and Illinois HB 3773), a consistent pattern emerges. Even though the laws differ in scope and mechanism, they share three requirements:

1. Human review before a final decision

None of the laws prohibit using AI in hiring entirely. They prohibit using AI to make final decisions without a human in the loop. NYC LL 144 targets tools that "substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making." Illinois HB 3773 addresses discriminatory outcomes. The shared assumption is that a human reviewer who can apply context and override an AI output is the compliance backstop.

2. Candidate notification before AI is used

All three enacted laws require some form of advance notice to candidates before AI is applied to their application. The specifics differ (10 business days under LL 144, pre-interview consent under the Video Interview Act, timing rules still being finalized under HB 3773), but the principle is identical: candidates have a right to know that AI is being used to evaluate them.

3. Access to an alternative assessment

NYC LL 144 requires employers to accept requests for alternative processes. Ohio's proposed HB 828 includes the same provision. The Illinois Video Interview Act implicitly creates one because it requires consent (which can be withheld). Illinois HB 3773 does not mandate an alternative explicitly, but it creates liability for discriminatory outcomes, which pushes employers toward alternatives that can be defended.

The practical result: any AI-based screening program operating across these jurisdictions needs a documented alternative path for candidates who request one.

What "Alternative Assessment" Means in Practice

The laws are consistent about requiring an alternative but largely silent about what that alternative must look like. The common understanding, based on the legislative records and employer guidance published by law firms, is that the alternative must not use the regulated AI tool and must give the candidate a genuine opportunity to demonstrate qualification.

In practice, async video screening with a human reviewer fits this description. The candidate records responses to structured questions; a hiring manager or recruiter watches the recordings and evaluates them directly. No algorithm produces a score. No automated classification determines whether the candidate advances. A person makes that call.

This is a materially different category from tools like HireVue's video analysis or Harver's situational judgment scoring. Those tools generate scores based on AI analysis of candidate responses. An async screening platform where responses are collected and reviewed by humans does not generate automated scores; it gives recruiters a richer view of candidates than a resume provides without triggering the AEDT definition.

Hirevire is structured this way. Candidates answer questions via video, audio, or text. Recruiters watch, listen, or read responses and make their own assessments. There is no AI-generated score attached to candidates, and no automated recommendation that a candidate should advance or be rejected. The platform collects responses; the hiring team evaluates them.

This design means Hirevire is not an AEDT under any of the three definitions reviewed above. It also means it can function as the "alternative assessment" that employers need to offer to candidates who opt out of AI-scored screening.

Compliance Checklist for SMB Recruiters

This checklist covers what employers using AI-based hiring tools need to address under the laws currently in force. It is informational only and does not constitute legal advice; consult employment counsel for your jurisdiction.

Audit your current tools:

• [ ] List every software tool used in your hiring process that touches candidate evaluation
• [ ] Identify which tools produce a score, rank, or recommendation that influences advancement decisions
• [ ] Check whether any of those tools meet the AEDT definition under NYC LL 144 or similar frameworks
• [ ] If yes, determine whether the tool vendor has conducted a third-party bias audit and can provide results

For NYC-jurisdiction hiring (LL 144):

• [ ] Confirm the AEDT has a current bias audit (dated within the past year) with published results
• [ ] Audit results must be on the employer's website for at least six months
• [ ] Implement a 10-business-day advance notice process for any candidate evaluated by the AEDT
• [ ] Create a documented alternative process for candidates who request one
• [ ] Verify that your vendor, if using one, can supply the bias audit data or conducts its own

For Illinois-jurisdiction hiring (Video Interview Act):

• [ ] If using AI to analyze recorded video interviews, add a consent step before the interview begins
• [ ] Confirm the notification explains what characteristics the AI evaluates
• [ ] Add a video deletion request process with a 30-day response window
• [ ] If AI is the sole determinant of advancement, implement demographic data collection

For Illinois-jurisdiction hiring (HB 3773, effective January 1, 2026):

• [ ] Conduct a disparate impact review of any AI used in covered employment decisions
• [ ] Review the Illinois Department of Human Rights notice rules when finalized
• [ ] Ensure that AI tools used in Illinois hiring decisions do not produce outcomes that differ systematically by protected class

For Ohio hiring (HB 828 - watch, no action yet required):

• [ ] Monitor the 136th General Assembly session; HB 828 is in committee as of May 2026
• [ ] If the bill passes, the same framework as NYC LL 144 would apply: human review, 10-day notice, alternative assessment

Vendor due diligence questions to ask any AI hiring tool vendor:

• [ ] Does your tool meet the AEDT definition under NYC Local Law 144?
• [ ] Have you conducted a third-party bias audit? When? Can we see the results?
• [ ] What demographic data do you provide to help us assess disparate impact?
• [ ] What is your process for candidates who request an alternative assessment?
• [ ] How do you handle data deletion requests?
• [ ] What notice materials do you provide for employer use?

How Hirevire Helps Hiring Teams Navigate These Requirements

The core compliance challenge in AI hiring law is not "stop using technology." It is "stop using technology that makes decisions for you." That distinction shapes how Hirevire fits into a compliant screening workflow.

Out of scope by design. Hirevire collects multi-format responses (video, audio, text, file upload) and makes them available to human reviewers. It does not generate a score that ranks candidates or a recommendation that automatically advances or rejects them. Under the definitions in NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, and Ohio HB 828, that means it is not an AEDT. Employers using it do not trigger the bias audit, advance notice, or alternative assessment obligations that apply to scoring-based tools.

Built-in alternative assessment. For employers who do use AI-scored tools elsewhere in their funnel and need to offer a compliant alternative, Hirevire fits that role directly. A candidate who opts out of an AI scoring tool can complete a Hirevire screening instead - same structured questions, no automated scoring, reviewed by a human.

No candidate friction. Candidates complete Hirevire screenings without creating an account or downloading software. Response rates stay high, which matters when compliance requires documenting that an alternative was genuinely offered and accessible.

Pricing stays predictable. Hirevire starts at $39/month billed annually. For organizations managing compliance costs alongside tool costs, flat-rate pricing removes one variable from a workflow that already has enough moving parts.

Try Hirevire free and see whether async human-reviewed screening fits your compliance posture.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does my company need to comply with NYC Local Law 144 if we are not based in New York?

Yes, if you use an AEDT to evaluate candidates or employees who are located in New York City. The law follows the location of the candidate, not the employer. A company headquartered in Dallas that posts roles open to NYC residents and uses AI to screen applicants triggers LL 144's requirements for those candidates.

What counts as an "automated employment decision tool" under these laws?

Under NYC LL 144's definition, a tool qualifies as an AEDT if it: uses machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or AI; produces a simplified output (score, classification, or recommendation); and is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making in a hiring decision. Resume parsing that surfaces documents without ranking them, ATS platforms that store and organize applications, and scheduling tools are generally not AEDTs. AI tools that rank candidates, predict job fit, or classify applicants by likelihood of hire typically are.

Is Ohio's proposed HB 828 a law I need to comply with now?

No. As of May 2026, HB 828 is in committee in the 136th Ohio General Assembly. It has not passed and has not been signed into law. Ohio employers have no compliance obligation under HB 828 at this time. That could change; the bill's structure mirrors NYC LL 144, so if it advances, the compliance requirements would be familiar.

Does asking candidates to record a video interview trigger Illinois law?

It depends on what happens to the recording. The Illinois AI Video Interview Act is triggered only when an employer uses AI to analyze the video. If a recruiter watches the recording and makes their own judgment, the Act does not apply. If an AI system analyzes the video to score the candidate's word choice, vocal patterns, or facial expressions, the Act requires prior consent and notification.

What is the risk of getting this wrong?

Under NYC LL 144, the DCWP can impose civil penalties. Under Illinois HB 3773, complaints are handled through the Illinois Human Rights Commission, with remedies that include back pay, reinstatement, and damages. The more significant risk may be disparate impact litigation: a documented pattern of AI tool outputs that disproportionately screen out protected-class candidates creates a paper trail that plaintiffs can use under existing federal discrimination law regardless of whether local AI regulations apply.

Do these laws apply to promotion decisions, or only to initial hiring?

Both NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773 cover employment decisions beyond initial hiring. LL 144 covers "promotion, demotion, reassignment" in addition to hiring. HB 3773 covers promotion, renewal of employment, training selection, discharge, and discipline. The Illinois AI Video Interview Act is limited by its name: it applies specifically to video interviews conducted as part of the application process.

What should I tell candidates about AI use in our hiring process?

At a minimum: that AI may be used to evaluate their application, what characteristics it assesses, and how to request an alternative process. The specific timing and format requirements vary by jurisdiction. NYC LL 144 requires written notice at least 10 business days before the AEDT is used. Illinois HB 3773's notice rules depend on what the Department of Human Rights finalizes. For candidates who ask questions you cannot answer about your AI tools, that is often a sign that your vendor has not provided adequate audit documentation.

What to Watch Next

Illinois notice rule finalization. The Illinois Department of Human Rights published draft notice rules in late 2025. Final rules are expected to clarify the specific notice timing and format required under HB 3773. Employers with Illinois hiring operations should monitor IDHR announcements.

Ohio HB 828 committee progress. The bill was introduced in late April 2026 and is working through committee in the 136th General Assembly. If it advances to a floor vote, the timeline to compliance would be short. Companies hiring in Ohio that currently use AI scoring tools should have a contingency plan ready.

Federal landscape shifts. The EEOC removed its AI hiring technical assistance documents in January 2025, signaling a change in federal posture. Title VII's disparate impact standard remains intact, but federal agencies are unlikely to issue new guidance in the current environment. State-level regulation will continue to fill the gap.

Conclusion

The AI hiring compliance landscape is no longer theoretical. NYC Local Law 144 has been in enforcement for nearly two years, Illinois has two enacted AI employment statutes with the broader one now in effect as of January 2026, and Ohio is watching a bill move through committee that would extend the same framework statewide.

The common thread in every enacted law: automated tools that score or classify candidates trigger audits and notice requirements, while human-reviewed screening does not. That distinction gives hiring teams a straightforward compliance path - use AI tools for tasks where they help without scoring candidates, and make sure a human makes the actual evaluation call.

For teams looking for a screening approach that stays outside the regulatory perimeter by design, Hirevire collects structured candidate responses for human review without generating the automated scores that trigger these laws.

This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice. Consult employment counsel for guidance specific to your jurisdiction and tool configuration.

Get Started with Hirevire →

Last updated: May 2026. Legal information verified against primary sources as of publication date.