Your Right to Demand a Human Review of an AI Hiring or Firing Decision in 2026

Artificial intelligence is becoming part of more employment decisions every year. Employers use artificial intelligence to screen applicants, evaluate performance, recommend discipline, and assist with termination decisions. One of the main concerns is making sure important employment decisions receive human review instead of relying on software. 

Employees who reach out to Brandon J. Broderick are often trying to understand how a decision was made, and when an automated system played a role. As lawmakers respond to the growing use of automated tools, greater attention is being placed on transparency and human involvement. 

Human review helps ensure that important employment decisions are not based solely on automated systems without meaningful oversight.

This article explains when employees and job applicants may have the right to request human review of an AI-assisted hiring or firing decision, how emerging legal protections are evolving, and when to reach out to an employment lawyer in New Jersey. 

When Human Review Applies to AI Decisions in New Jersey

Artificial intelligence is already part of many workplace decisions in New Jersey. A recent survey found that 63% of employers use at least one automated tool to recruit applicants or make decisions. Another 47% acknowledge that those tools may produce unfair outcomes. 

A right to human review means a worker affected by an automated employment decision can require a person to examine the decision and the data behind it. The review takes place either before the outcome becomes final or after the fact, with a person reconsidering the result. The legal force of the review depends on what the law requires of the employer.

The clearest example exists in European Union law. The General Data Protection Regulation, Article 22, has given EU residents a right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing that produce legal or similarly significant effects. 

The EU AI Act classifies employment decisions as high-risk and requires meaningful human oversight. The EU approach is what most U.S. proposals have aimed to follow, though the results so far have been uneven.

A real right to human review involves a set of specific elements. The worker has to be able to see the data and the score the tool generated. A person with the authority to overturn the decision has to examine the case. Without these pieces, the review is a formality rather than a real check on the original outcome.

A meaningful right to demand human review of an AI employment decision includes:

• A written disclosure that an automated tool was used in the decision.
• The right to request the data and the score the tool produced.
• A person with decision-making authority who can re-examine the case.
• A clear timeframe within which the employer has to respond.
• A plain-language explanation if the original decision stands.
• A bar on retaliation against the worker for invoking the right.

American civil rights laws do not create a general right to human review of employment decisions. Instead, they require employers to make lawful, non-discriminatory decisions. Those obligations apply even when an employer relies on outsourced job evaluations or assisted decision-making.  When our attorneys at Brandon J. Broderick review discrimination claims, we look at the decision itself rather than whether it came from a manager or an algorithm. 

Aside from a few exceptions, laws requiring human review of AI employment decisions have not yet taken effect in the United States. 

Appeal Rights for Automated Employment Decisions in New Jersey 

California Senate Bill 7, the most prominent U.S. effort to create a human-review right, was vetoed. Sen. Jerry McNerney's "No Robo Bosses Act" passed the California Senate in September 2025. The bill would have required human oversight of software used to discipline or terminate workers, and written notice when AI was used in employment decisions. It also included the worker's right to appeal. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill later in October. 

Colorado followed a more complicated path. The original Colorado AI Act, SB 24-205, was intended to cover automated tools in employment. Its effective date was set for Feb. 1, 2026. 

Implementation was delayed. When a federal court paused enforcement, the legislature repealed and replaced the entire law. The new Colorado law requires meaningful human review of automated decisions in employment and other high-stakes areas, and it takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (HB 149) took effect on Jan. 1, 2026. The enacted version was scaled back from the original draft. It focuses on intentional discrimination and requires no risk-management plan for private employers. It does not create an individual right to demand human involvement. Enforcement runs through the state Attorney General only, with no private right of action.

Federal action has moved in the opposite direction. Executive Order 14281, signed in April 2025, directed federal agencies to reduce disparate-impact enforcement. The EEOC has removed its 2023 AI guidance and slowed enforcement under disparate impact theories. 

New Jersey has taken a different approach through state law. Bias remains unlawful even as federal priorities change. That includes obvious discrimination as well as workplace patterns involving microaggressions and biased employment decisions. 

AI Hiring Transparency and Worker Rights in New Jersey 

New Jersey has no enacted right to demand human review of an AI employment decision. No state statute creates such a right. What New Jersey has built, instead, is a strong indirect set of protections through anti-discrimination law that reaches much of the same ground a formal review right would.

On Jan. 9, 2025, the Attorney General and the Division on Civil Rights issued formal guidance establishing that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) applies to algorithmic bias. 

The guidance states that the LAD "draws no distinctions based on the mechanism of discrimination," so an AI-driven firing receives the same legal analysis as a human decision. An employer using a tool that produces biased outcomes is liable regardless of intent. The liability cannot be shifted to the vendor.

The December 2025 disparate impact rules added regulatory weight. On Dec. 15, 2025, the Division on Civil Rights adopted rules at N.J.A.C. 13:16, which Attorney General Platkin described as the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact regulations in the country. 

The rules apply to:

• Resume screening software.
• Online application filters.
• Facial analysis technology.
• Video interview assessment tools.
• Productivity and workplace monitoring systems.

New Jersey lawmakers continue to consider several proposals addressing the software, but none have become law. The pending bills cover topics including automated hiring tools, AI used in video interviews, broader workplace AI regulation, discrimination based on automated decision systems, and the impact of AI on the workforce. 

Under current New Jersey law, workers have:

• No statutory right to require human review of an AI employment decision.
• No statutory right to receive notice that software was used.
• No statutory right to access the score or underlying data.
• The right to pursue a discrimination claim if a decision violates the Law Against Discrimination.
• The right to challenge a system that fails to account for a reasonable accommodation.
• Access to relevant records through discovery if litigation is filed.

The NJLAD and the December 2025 rules give workers a meaningful way to challenge AI-assisted employment decisions. When our legal team litigates these cases, employers generally have to explain the decision and produce the supporting data. Although New Jersey does not have a statute requiring human review, the litigation process is similar.

How Meaningful Human Review Works Under NJ Employment Law

The NJLAD provides the most direct legal path. An employee who believes an AI-assisted decision was influenced by race, age, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or another protected characteristic may file a discrimination complaint with the Division on Civil Rights or bring a lawsuit. 

The same logic applies when an AI system reinforces workplace bullying or gives weight to coordinated complaints from coworkers that target a particular employee. Once a claim is filed, the employer has to explain the decision and produce the records supporting it. 

A reasonable accommodation claim provides another path. An employee with a condition requiring an adjustment may challenge an AI-assisted decision that failed to take this into account. This includes temporary or time-limited accommodations. An employee may have a claim if automated software counts a modified work pace or adjusted duties against them. Unlike a disparate impact case, this type of claim does not require statistical evidence of broader bias. 

Early documentation often makes a difference. An employee who believes an AI system played a role should ask in writing whether an automated tool was used and request the employer's policy. Keeping performance reviews and scoring information that may show evidence of racial bias or other discriminatory treatment is also important. Those records are harder to obtain after employment ends. 

Depending on the circumstances, a New Jersey worker may be able to:

• File a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights.
• Bring a claim under the NJLAD.
• Assert disability or religious accommodation rights.
• File a charge with the EEOC under applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.
• Pursue a CEPA retaliation claim after objecting to an automated system.
• Bring wage and hour or contract claims involving AI-assisted employment decisions.

A claim under the NJLAD often requires an employer to explain and support an AI-assisted employment decision, even without a statute requiring human review. 

If you believe an automated system affected your hiring, discipline, or termination, contact us today for a free consultation.