EO 14281 poses significant challenges for employers because it seeks to limit disparate impact liability but clashes with established state and local regulations and laws, such as New York City’s law regarding the use of automated employment decision tools. This tension underscores the increasing complexity of managing artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision-making in the workplace amid shifting legal standards.

This week’s key topics include:

• the scope of EO 14281;
• conflicts between EO 14281 and existing federal, state, and local laws; and
• best practices to mitigate risks in AI employment decisions.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Marc A. Mandelman and Nathaniel M. Glasser unpack these developments and provide employers with practical strategies to stay compliant and address critical workforce challenges.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw391

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.