AI Bias in Background Checks: Avoiding Discrimination Under Title VII and ADA

Contact Us
1
2
3
12 Sep, 2025
5 min
A bust of a person under a magnifying glass held by a robotic arm against a backdrop of a group of different people | Consumer Attorneys PLLC

AI Bias in Background Checks: How Algorithmic Hiring Tools Can Violate Title VII and the ADA

Artificial intelligence promises speed and scale in recruiting. But the same automated decision systems that rank résumés, score background checks, or verify identities can also replicate old prejudices – or introduce new ones – if they’re trained on skewed data or operate as opaque “black boxes.” That’s not just a technical problem; it’s a legal one under Title VII (disparate treatment and disparate impact) and the ADA (disability-related screening and accessibility). EEOC Department of Justice

How AI bias creeps into hiring and screening

AI learns patterns from historical data. If past decisions were biased – or if proxies like ZIP code, school attended, or employment gaps stand in for protected traits – the model can score candidates in ways that disproportionately exclude certain groups. These risks are heightened when systems are non-transparent and hard to audit. Law-firm and regulator guidance emphasize that “objective” algorithms can still encode human bias at scale. OgletreeEEOC

The technical literature backs this up: facial-analysis and face-matching technologies have shown demographic performance gaps, with higher false-positive/false-negative rates for some races and genders (and for children and older adults), underscoring the need for careful validation before using such tools in identity or background-verification workflows. NISTNIST PublicationsMIT News

Meanwhile, adoption keeps rising. SHRM’s 2024 reporting shows HR teams increasingly relying on AI across recruiting tasks – including about one-third using AI to review or screen résumés – which amplifies the compliance stakes. SHRM

The legal framework: Title VII, ADA, and the FCRA when background checks are involved

  • Title VII applies fully to algorithmic “selection procedures.” If a tool (including a vendor’s tool) causes a disparate impact on a protected group, the employer can be liable unless it proves business necessity and the lack of less-discriminatory alternatives. The EEOC issued technical assistance explaining how to assess adverse impact in software and AI used for employment selection. EEOC
  • ADA: Employers must ensure AI tools don’t screen out qualified applicants with disabilities and must provide reasonable accommodations (e.g., alternative formats or assessments). DOJ and EEOC jointly warned in 2022 that AI-enabled hiring can violate the ADA if it disadvantages people with disabilities. Department of Justice, ADA.gov
  • FCRA: When AI is used in background screening (risk scores, “fit” indexes, data-broker dossiers), the Fair Credit Reporting Act may apply. That means advance disclosure and written consent, and before taking adverse action, employers must provide the report and the CFPB’s Summary of Your Rights and give the applicant time to respond. The CFPB has also clarified that algorithmic dossiers and scores used for employment decisions are consumer reports subject to FCRA obligations. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Local/State rules: New York City’s Local Law 144 requires annual bias audits and candidate notices for Automated Employment Decision Tools. Similar initiatives and rulemakings are emerging elsewhere, with California advancing regulations on employer use of AI and automated decision-making systems. NYC.gov, Ogletree

Enforcement is real

The EEOC’s 2023 consent decree with iTutorGroup resolved allegations that the company’s recruiting software automatically rejected older applicants – an early test of how automated screening can trigger age-bias liability. The settlement included monetary relief and prospective changes. Even when a case is framed under other statutes (like the ADEA), it illustrates the same core risk: if your tool filters by protected traits or proxies, you own the consequences. EEOC

Case study: automated facial verification and deactivations

In 2024, Uber Eats UK paid a settlement to resolve a claim alleging its facial-recognition login checks wrongly flagged a Black driver, leading to lost work access. Regulators and researchers have documented demographic disparities in facial-recognition performance – one reason these systems require heightened testing, disclosures, and human review when used in employment or background-verification flows. Personnel Today, Equality and Human Rights Commission, NIST

Practical safeguards for employers (keep it simple – and documented)

  • Run periodic bias audits (pre-deployment and at set intervals). Test for disparate impact across legally protected groups; keep the analyses and mitigation steps on file. NYC requires independent audits for many tools. NYC.gov
  • Prefer explainable/transparent criteria. Choose vendors that provide clear inputs, model logic, and audit hooks; avoid unreviewable black boxes. Ogletree
  • Layer human review. Don’t let an automated score be the final word. Train recruiters on Title VII/ADA red flags and require second-level human checks before adverse action. EEOC
  • Design for accessibility. Offer alternative assessments and interfaces; publicize accommodation paths up front. ADA.gov
  • Follow the FCRA to the letter for any background-related AI output: disclosure, consent, pre-adverse notice, copy of the report, and waiting period. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Planning to deploy or already using AI in recruiting or screening? We help with policy design, vendor due diligence, bias testing, FCRA-compliant workflows, and multi-jurisdictional compliance (including NYC’s AEDT rule).

What job seekers can do

If you’re screened out by an automated tool, ask for the paperwork. For background-related decisions, the FCRA entitles you to the report and the CFPB rights notice before the employer makes a final decision. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

When to contact ConsumerAttorneys.com
When a background check mistake stands between you and a job. We’ll enforce your rights under fair-chance laws and the FCRA.
Free Consultation
imageAssociate Attorney David Pinkhasov
About the Author
David Pinkhasov
See more post

David Pinkhasov is an Associate of Consumer Attorneys. David is admitted in Courts of the State of New York and Florida. Read more

Contact Us
Select subject
I have read and agree to the Privacy Policy
Supported file formats:
RIGHTS END WRONGS
Free Consultation
Zero Costs and Fees to You.
You pay nothing. The law makes them pay.
Get started
Contact Us
Head Office NY
68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367
Office
706 East Bell Rd., Suite 114, Phoenix, AZ 85022
Our social media
Our rating services
TrustpilotBetter Business BureauGoogle Business