Congress mandates human review for AI hiring decisions, opens employers to lawsuits.

What it does

This bill prohibits employers with 11+ workers from relying solely on automated decision systems (AI, algorithms, software) to make employment decisions about hiring, firing, pay, scheduling, or promotions. Employers who use such systems must first test them for bias and discrimination, disclose to workers how the system works, allow workers to dispute the decision with a human, and provide documentation of how the AI was used. The bill creates a new Department of Labor division to enforce these rules and gives workers the right to sue employers who violate the law.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a mandatory disclosure, testing, and human-review regime for employer use of automated decision systems in employment. It is fundamentally a worker-protection and algorithmic-accountability measure, not a ban on AI use.

What the text implies

• The bill's definition of 'automated decision system' excludes 'passive computing infrastructure' (hosting, storage, caching), which may create ambiguity about whether resume-screening software, applicant-tracking systems, or performance-monitoring tools qualify as regulated systems or passive infrastructure.
• Employers may satisfy the 'human corroboration' requirement with minimal meaningful review, since the bill does not define the depth or independence of human oversight—a human could rubber-stamp an AI decision without genuine reconsideration.
• The bill requires annual independent testing for discriminatory impact and public disclosure of results, but does not specify who conducts the testing, what 'independent' means, or what happens if bias is found—creating potential for weak compliance.
• State attorneys general and privacy regulators gain broad parens patriae standing to sue on behalf of residents, potentially creating overlapping federal and state enforcement and inconsistent remedies across jurisdictions.
• The bill waives sovereign immunity for states and tribal governments that receive federal financial assistance, exposing them to private lawsuits and state AG enforcement—a significant expansion of liability for public employers.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Workers gain enforceable rights to transparency, human review, and legal recourse when employers use AI in employment decisions. The bill restricts employer power to automate away worker protections and creates statutory damages ($5,000–$40,000 per violation) and private rights of action, shifting leverage toward workers. However, the bill applies only to employers with 11+ workers, leaving smaller employers unregulated.

Who stands to gain

• employment law firms (litigation and compliance advisory)
• AI auditing and testing firms
• HR technology vendors offering bias-detection and compliance tools
• worker advocacy organizations and labor unions

Named in the bill

Department of Labor, Technology and Worker Protection Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, State attorneys general, State privacy regulators, Government Accountability Office, Library of Congress, Office of Compliance, Office of Personnel Management — and 1 more

Where it stands

13 cosponsors: 12 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Dec 3, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Dec 3, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and House Committee on House Administration · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on House…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,105,425 in lobbying spend. A filing names 70 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Suzanne Bonamici, the sponsor, reported $461,650 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• AFL-CIO — $1,520,000 on 2 filings
• Communications Workers of America — $431,000 on 1 filing
• College of American Pathologists — $154,425 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 21, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.