All regulations
United States, federalIn force since 1964

EEOC and Title VII

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and EEOC uniform guidelines

Every US employer sits under Title VII regardless of which state AI law applies. Since 1978 the Uniform Guidelines have treated any hiring method that produces adverse impact as unlawful until the employer justifies it. An algorithm is a hiring method like any other. This is the framework the four-fifths rule comes from in the first place.

Talk to us about an audit

At a glance

Core doctrine

Disparate impact under Title VII

Four-fifths rule

A selection rate below 80% of the top group is generally treated as evidence of adverse impact

Burden shift

Employer must show job-relatedness and business necessity

Alternatives

A less discriminatory alternative defeats the defence

Scope

All employers with 15 or more employees

Enforcement

EEOC and private litigation

Who has to comply

  • US employers with fifteen or more employees
  • Employers using any selection procedure, algorithmic or not
  • Vendors whose tools function as selection procedures for their customers

What the audit covers

  • Adverse impact analysis on race, sex and national origin
  • Four-fifths rule screening plus tests of statistical significance
  • Job-relatedness and validation evidence for the selection procedure
  • Search for less discriminatory alternatives that serve the same purpose

What non-compliance costs

Back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees through EEOC enforcement or private suit. Class actions are the material exposure where an algorithm screened thousands of applicants the same way.

EEOC and Title VII questions

Because Title VII already covers you. State AI laws add procedure and publication duties on top of a federal prohibition that has applied since 1964. An employer outside NYC, Colorado, Illinois and California still faces disparate impact liability for an algorithm that screens out protected groups.
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, adopted in 1978. If a group's selection rate is less than 80% of the highest-selected group's rate, that is generally treated as evidence of adverse impact. NYC Local Law 144 borrowed the metric rather than inventing it.
The EEOC removed its 2023 technical assistance on adverse impact in algorithmic selection procedures in January 2025, and federal enforcement of disparate impact has been deprioritised. The underlying law did not change. Title VII and the Uniform Guidelines at 29 C.F.R. Part 1607 remain in force, and private plaintiffs and state agencies can still bring disparate impact claims. Withdrawing guidance does not repeal a statute.
No. It shifts the burden. The employer can defend the tool by showing it is job-related and necessary for the business. Even then the claimant can win by pointing to a fairer alternative that does the same job.

Other regulations we audit against

NYC Local Law 144

New York City, USA

The first law anywhere to require an independent bias audit before an automated hiring tool can be used.

Colorado SB 26-189

Colorado, USA

Notice, explanation and human review when automated technology materially influences a consequential decision.

Illinois HB 3773

Illinois, USA

Makes discriminatory AI in employment decisions a civil rights violation, and bans zip code as a proxy for protected class.

Get audited against EEOC and Title VII

One engagement can cover this and every other jurisdiction you operate in.

Talk to usHow we test
EEOC and Title VII bias audit | VerifyWise