Undergraduate Law Review at Florida State University

Artificial Intelligence as a Hiring Tool: Hidden Discriminatory Impacts?

—

by

Undergraduate Law Review at FSU
in

Writer: Alexa Roberts

Article Editor: Isabella Brown

Associate Editors: Alaina Babb & Kelsie Fernandez

I. Introduction to the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Hiring Practices

With the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) on the rise, generative AI and large language models have become embedded in regular business operations, ranging from the employment process to daily business logistics. As defined by 15 U.S. Code § 9401, artificial intelligence refers to “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.”1 This increase in AI use raises legal questions regarding accountability, liability, and potential legal conflicts relevant to not just the technology’s application, but its design. As the use of AI tools in employment processes grows, a recent complaint of discrimination against one company’s use of an AI-powered interview platform highlights the pitfalls of using AI in these vital human resource management processes. Revising AI functions for platforms like HireVue and regulating their usage to ensure equitable hiring outcomes for people of all identities is necessary to create a more inclusive employment process.

II. An Overview of ACLU’s Complaint against Intuit’s Use of HireVue

In a complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the organization articulated allegations of discrimination resulting from Intuit’s use of HireVue.2 The ACLU brought forth this complaint on behalf of D.K., a Deaf3 and Indigenous Intuit employee who speaks with a deaf accent.4 Intuit Inc. (“Intuit”) is a multinational financial technology company that employed D.K. in Colorado.5 HireVue is an asynchronous remote video interviewing platform that presents candidates with interview questions, preparation time, and an opportunity to record a response.6 D.K. worked successfully for the company with routinely positive ratings until applying for the Seasonal Manager position after encouragement from her manager.7 Despite D.K. “specifically raising concerns about HireVue’s potential discriminatory impact on deaf applicants,” Intuit moved forward with its use of the platform in the interview process.8 D.K. was aware that HireVue did not provide subtitles or otherwise accessible instructions or questions, so she requested the accommodation of Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) captioning.9 Instead of agreeing to this accommodation, Intuit insisted that HireVue’s software included operable subtitles. 10However, upon conducting the interview, D.K. discovered there was no such option for subtitles, and she had to rely on inaccurately generated Google Chrome subtitles.11 Allegedly, Intuit inadequately addressed D.K.’s reasonable accommodation request, which negatively impacted her interview process. Ultimately, D.K. was denied the promotion and received feedback believed to be generated by HireVue’s automated analysis of her interview.12 This feedback advised her to build expertise in “effective communication,” practicing explaining tax concepts in a “clear and concise manner,” and to “practice active listening.”13

III. How HireVue’s Tools Operate: Discriminatory Framework

To understand the discriminatory nature outlined in the complaint brought by the ACLU, it is critical to comprehend the inner workings of HireVue’s AI augmentation. As the complaint explains, HireVue’s technology utilizes automated speech recognition (ASR) systems.14 HireVue is said to “perform worse when evaluating non-white applicants—including speakers of Indigenous dialects of English, also known as Native American English, who may have different speech patterns, word choices, and accents—than for white applicants.”15 The complaint references a recent study that determined several ASR systems performed ten times worse for the hard-of-hearing and deaf population and that, on average, every other word spoken by hard-of-hearing and deaf speakers is transcribed incorrectly. 16With these AI-powered ASR systems in place, non-white candidates and candidates with disabilities may be disadvantaged by a system not designed for them. In the case of D.K., an Indigenous woman with a Deaf accent,17 the use of the HireVue system by Intuit may have discriminated against her and negatively impacted her employment process.

IV. State and Federal Legislation Conflicts: CADA, ADA, and Title VII

Intuit’s use of HireVue, as alleged by the ACLU, appears to violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Under CADA, D.K. falls within protected characteristics based on both disability and race as a Deaf and Indigenous woman.18 CADA states that it is discriminatory or an unfair employment practice for an employer to “hire, to discharge, to promote or demote, to harass during the course of employment, or to discriminate […] against any individual otherwise qualified because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, religion, age, national origin, or ancestry.”19 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) addresses protections for people with disabilities on the federal level, which D.K. is entitled to as a Deaf woman.20 Specific language in the ADA outlaws: “qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability…[unless] shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity”; and “failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).”21 As the complaint by the ACLU points out, D.K. was an otherwise qualified candidate for the promoted position she sought out and for which she was interviewed.22 In utilizing inaccessible hiring tools through the use of HireVue’s AI, Intuit allegedly discriminated against D.K. based on a protected class of disability. These interviews, which may be considered employment tests, were found to tend to screen out individuals with a disability, and failed to be administered in a manner that was conscious of D.K.’s deafness or accurately reflective of her capabilities. On the federal level as well, language found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) highlights the potential discriminatory nature of Intuit’s use of HireVue. Title VII explicitly states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire an individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.23 In the case of D.K., Intuit’s use of HireVue allegedly discriminated against her on the basis of her race or national origin as an Indigenous woman.24 Therefore, Intuit’s use of HireVue appears to allegedly violate both state and federal legislation aimed at protecting her identities as a Deaf and Indigenous woman.

V. Conclusion

As alleged by the complaint filed by the ACLU on behalf of D.K., Intuit’s use of HireVue led to discriminatory practices during the hiring process, negatively impacting D.K.’s career. D.K. is not the only member of a protected class who may be negatively impacted by AI-powered employment platforms. Businesses must be cognizant of the technology they utilize in their employment processes, designing them for accessible and equitable use to ensure fair hiring practices for all candidates. As legislation for AI as a whole continues to develop on both the state and federal levels, the government should consider how AI design may be inherently discriminatory in employment processes. With legislation to guide companies, as well as greater internal awareness of how AI tools may have a disparate impact on people with disabilities and members of protected classes, AI may be used in a fairer and nondiscriminatory manner.

  1. 15 U.S.C. § 9401. ↩︎
  2. Complaint of Discrimination, Am. C.L. Union (Mar. 2025), https://www.lfllegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ACLU-complaint-against-HireVue-and-Intuit.pdf. ↩︎
  3. Id. (“The word ‘Deaf,’ used in the complaint, refers to an individual who identifies with Deaf culture, a sociolinguistic community that primarily uses American Sign Language. The terms ‘deaf and hard of hearing’ or ‘deaf’ are used to refer to those with hearing levels or hearing loss that qualify as disabilities under the ADA. Deaf cultural identity is the shared values, behaviors, and experiences of deaf communities, including the importance of sign language as one of its key aspects.”). ↩︎
  4. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 1. ↩︎
  5. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 3. ↩︎
  6. Id. ↩︎
  7. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 7. ↩︎
  8. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 8. ↩︎
  9. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 5 (“Human-generated captioning services, known as Communication Access Realtime Translation (‘CART’), involve professionally trained captioners who provide context-aware, real-time transcription with substantially higher accuracy.”) ↩︎
  10. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 9. ↩︎
  11. Id. ↩︎
  12. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 10. ↩︎
  13. Id. ↩︎
  14. Id. ↩︎
  15. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 2. ↩︎
  16. Id. ↩︎
  17. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 1. ↩︎
  18. Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402 (2024). ↩︎
  19. Id. ↩︎
  20. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-2. ↩︎
  21. Id. ↩︎
  22. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 2. ↩︎
  23. Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-2. ↩︎
  24. Complaint of Discrimination, supra note 2, at 2. ↩︎

Comments

Leave a comment