Skip to main content

Posts

Featured

The audit said it passed. The lawsuit says otherwise.

THE AUDIT SAID IT PASSED. THE LAWSUIT SAYS OTHERWISE. AI hiring tool vendors are facing discrimination lawsuits in 2026. The claims: algorithms screening out applicants based on age, disability and race. The legal theory is consistent across cases – the algorithm is biased and the harm is real. Here's the part that matters: an AI system can pass its legally required bias audit and still be discriminatory at the job level. Not because the audit lied. Because the audit's math – not just the algorithm – can hide the disparity. Bias audits measure aggregate outcomes across protected classes. If a hiring tool screens applicants and advances men and women at similar rates, it passes. But aggregate rates don't show within-job discrimination. The system can screen women fairly for administrative roles and screen them out of technical roles, and the overall pass rate looks fine. The audit sees balance. The individual applicant sees a rejection she can't appeal and doesn...

Latest Posts

The Helmet Standard Protecting Me Was Written When I Was a Kid

Every "Acceptable" AEB System Failed to Stop for a Motorcycle at 43 MPH

What Trauma-Informed Care Actually Means — And What It Isn't

Illinois Raised the Juvenile Detention Age to 12. It's Not High Enough.

Trump's Vaccine Order: Autism Isn't Damage

Colorado's Lane Filtering Law: Legal Authorization Without Safety Infrastructure

When 'We Didn't Mean It' Stops Being Enough

Two States, Two Directions: Juvenile Justice Reform in 2026

Authority Substituted for Autonomy

A month is a long time to be SYSTEM