On
The EEOC has invited the public to submit written comments on any issues discussed at the meeting through
Panelist Concerns
The testimony addressed a number of shared concerns, though the panelists diverged in their recommendations about the role the EEOC should play to address them.
Critical evaluation of data. The testimony delivered to the EEOC consistently cited the importance of data to artificial intelligence. Concerns related to data include how its scope and quality can impact the individuals who may be selected or excluded by algorithm-based tools.
Validation and auditing. The role of auditing artificial intelligence tools for bias was a repeated concern raised by the panelists. Testimony debated whether audits should be required or recommended and whether they should be independent or self-conducted. Further, panelists questioned whether vendors should share liability related to the artificial intelligence tools they promote for commercial gain.
Transparency and trust. Multiple panelists raised concerns over the extent to which individuals subjected to artificial intelligence tools have any knowledge that such applications are being used. These concerns led the panelists to express doubt about how any individual with a disability affectable by artificial intelligence applications could know whether, when, and how to request an accommodation. Further, the panelists consistently shared as a priority that the EEOC support a system in which artificial intelligence is trustworthy in its applications.
Applicable or necessary laws. Testimony critiqued the application of traditional antidiscrimination analysis to the application of artificial intelligence as a hiring and screening tool. Although current disparate treatment analysis seeks to prohibit a decision-maker from considering race when selecting a candidate, panelists suggested that some consideration of race and other protected characteristics should be permitted as a strategy to de-bias automated systems to ensure an artificial intelligence model is fair to all groups. The panelists also addressed the applicability of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to automated decision tools and the potential for the use of analyses other than the "four-fifths rule" to evaluate the potential disparate impact of such tools.
Panelist Recommendations
Multiple panelists called for the EEOC to have a role in evaluating artificial intelligence applications for bias. Commissioner Sonderling suggested the EEOC consider taking an approach similar to the one taken by the
Key Takeaways
The EEOC is likely to issue one or more additional publications following the hearing's testimony to provide guidance for employers and individuals on the application of equal employment laws to artificial intelligence applications. The meeting was part of EEOC Chair Burrows's Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative. One of the stated goals of the initiative is to "[i]ssue technical assistance to provide guidance on algorithmic fairness and the use of AI in employment decisions." On
Further, the EEOC's hearing took place as the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
WI 53205
Tel: 404881-1300
E-mail: client.services@ogletreedeakins.com
URL: www.ogletree.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source