COMPLIANCE
Potential means nothing if you can't defend how you measured it.
Workday faces a federal lawsuit over algorithmic discrimination. HireVue halted facial analysis after an FTC complaint. iTutorGroup paid $365,000 to settle EEOC age discrimination charges. Meanwhile, 78% of companies deploy AI in hiring -- but only 31% have enforcement-level governance. That 47% gap is where the lawsuits land. The question isn't whether AI hiring will face accountability -- it's whether you're prepared when regulators arrive.
78%
of companies deploy AI in hiring
31%
have enforcement-level governance
47%
the gap is where the lawsuits land.
THE REGULATORY LANDSCAPE
The regulations are here.
You can't outsource compliance to your vendors. If their AI discriminates, you're liable.
Five regulatory frameworks now govern AI in hiring -- from NYC to the EU. Each carries real penalties. None of them accept "our vendor handles it" as a defense. And 71% of companies still let AI reject candidates without human review. That's not a process gap. It's an enforcement target.
78%
of companies deploy AI in hiring
31%
have enforcement-level governance
47%
the gap is where the lawsuits land.
NYC LOCAL LAW 144
Requires annual bias audits by independent auditors with public disclosure.
Penalties: $500–$1,500 per violation (multiplied by every candidate affected)
Effective: Now
EU AI ACT
Classifies employment AI as "high-risk" with mandatory conformity assessments, documentation requirements, and human oversight provisions.
Penalties: Up to €35 million or 7% of global revenue
Employment provisions effective: August 2026
COLORADO AI ACT
Requires impact assessments for high-risk AI systems updated annually.
Effective: June 2026
EEOC POSITION
An employer can be held responsible under Title VII for selection procedures that use an algorithmic decision-making tool if the procedure discriminates -- even if the tool is designed or administered by another entity, such as a software vendor.
Impact: Class action suits typically $1M+ in settlements. Vendor liability cannot protect you.
CALIFORNIA AI REQUIREMENTS
Requires employers using AI hiring tools to retain records of AI inputs, outputs, and decision-making processes for at least four years. Applies to all automated decision systems used in employment.
Enforcement: DFEH investigation authority; record-keeping violations subject to penalties
Effective: Active -- 4-year retention mandate
95% of business leaders believe AI produces biased recommendations -- yet only 31% have governance to address it (Sources: AIHR, Deloitte)
OUR APPROACH
Here's how you never become the headline.
Catalyzr was built for the compliance era from the ground up -- aligned to Deloitte's Trustworthy AI framework: Fair, Transparent, Accountable, and Governed. Every CQ score is explainable. Every decision is auditable. Every assessment is validated against adverse impact before it ever reaches a candidate. When risk-aware buyers ask "How are you auditing for bias?" and "Can you explain how your algorithm makes decisions?" -- we answer before the question is asked.
Explainable Decisions
Every CQ score comes with a plain-language explanation of how it was calculated. No black boxes. When candidates or regulators ask why, you have clear answers. Aligned to Deloitte's Transparency pillar.
Human Oversight
CQ informs decisions -- it doesn't make them. Humans remain in control of final hiring choices, meeting the human oversight requirements of the EU AI Act. Candidates can challenge decisions and receive human review.
Adverse Impact Testing
We validate our algorithms against adverse impact before deployment -- not after complaints arrive. Continuous monitoring catches issues before they become violations. Aligned to Deloitte's Fairness pillar.
Third-Party Support
We support independent bias audits with full cooperation and documentation. Our methodology stands up to scrutiny. If your auditors can't verify it, it shouldn't be in your hiring stack.
Automatic Documentation
Compliance documentation for NYC Local Law 144 bias audits, Colorado AI Act impact assessments, and California's 4-year record retention requirements is generated automatically. When regulators request records, you're ready.
RISK PROFILE
Choose your risk profile.
Most AI hiring tools were built to optimize speed. Catalyzr was built to withstand scrutiny. While competitors face lawsuits and scramble to retrofit governance, we lead with compliance built in from day one.
Category | Typical AI Hiring Tools | Catalyzr |
|---|---|---|
Bias Testing | Tested after deployment | Validated before deployment |
Decision Transparency | Black box scoring | Plain-language explanations |
Audit Readiness | Manual documentation | Automatic compliance docs |
Continuous Monitoring | Reactive only | Proactive alerts |
Human Oversight | AI makes final decisions | AI informs human decisions |
Vendor Accountability | You assume all risk | We support your audits |
Built for compliance from day one -- not retrofitted after the first lawsuit.
Don't wait for the audit.
Regulators aren't waiting. NYC Local Law 144 is already being enforced. The EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act take effect in 2026. California requires 4-year record retention for AI hiring decisions. Get ahead of compliance now -- not after the first investigation letter arrives.
NYC LL144: Active now
EU AI Act: August 2026
Colorado AI Act: June 2026
California: 4-year retention