Illinois Human Rights Act amendment on AI in employment (HB 3773, Public Act 103-0804)

In short

From 1 January 2026, Illinois employers may not use AI that has the effect of discriminating on the basis of a protected class in recruitment, hiring, promotion, training selection, discipline, discharge or terms of employment. Intent does not matter. Employers must notify applicants and employees when AI is used for those decisions and may not use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes. The Illinois Department of Human Rights proposed notice rules in May 2026 and then paused them, but the statutory duties apply regardless.

Key dates

1. Jan 1, 2026✓In effect
2. May 15, 2026✓IDHR published proposed notice rules (later temporarily withdrawn; statute still applies)

What you have to do

• List every AI or automated tool touching recruiting, hiring, promotion, discipline or termination.
• Give applicants and employees clear notice that AI is used in those decisions.
• Test tools for disparate impact on protected classes before use and periodically after.
• Remove zip code and other proxies for race or national origin from AI inputs.
• Keep a human decision-maker able to override AI outputs and document why.

Penalties

Standard Illinois Human Rights Act remedies: IDHR complaints, actual damages, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and compliance orders. Employers are liable for discriminatory effect regardless of intent.

Related lessons

• Level 1The world map of AI rules: EU, US patchwork, Canada, standards8 min
• Level 1Why it matters: what enforcement actually looks like7 min
• Level 2Risk classification: prohibited, high-risk, limited, minimal8 min
• Level 2Transparency and disclosure: telling people AI is involved7 min
• Level 3Bias and fairness testing, including bias audits8 min
• Level 5Preparing for enforcement, investigations and appeals7 min
• Level 5Staying current: key dates ahead and how to track change6 min

Real cases

• Settlement2023 · US-federal
  EEOC v. iTutorGroup — hiring software that auto-rejected older applicants

  Settlement announced 9 August 2023 (EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02565, E.D.N.Y.). iTutorGroup agreed to pay $365,000 to rejected applicants, adopt new anti-discrimination policies and training, stop asking for birth dates, invite previously rejected applicants to re-apply if US hiring resumes, and accept EEOC monitoring for five years. The company did not admit wrongdoing.

• Lawsuit2025 · US-federal
  Mobley v. Workday — collective action over AI hiring screens (ongoing)

  Ongoing as of September 2026. In July 2024 the court refused to dismiss the case, accepting the agent theory. On 16 May 2025 it conditionally certified a nationwide ADEA collective of applicants aged 40+ rejected via Workday's platform since September 2020; the opt-in notice period closed on 7 March 2026. In June 2026 the court let California FEHA claims and a proxy-discrimination disability claim proceed. No trial date, judgment or settlement has been reported.

Industries where it matters

• 🧑‍💼 HR & hiring