# When companies make AI use a condition of employment[^about] When employers can make AI use a condition of employment, and how ADA accommodation, discrimination, state AI laws, and monitoring rules apply. ## Can employers require workers to use AI as a condition of employment? {#mandatory-ai-use} **Short answer.** Usually yes, but only until the AI mandate becomes a protected-trait, accommodation, state-law, or labor-law problem. As of April 20, 2026, there is still no reported U.S. case saying an employer may, or may not, fire or refuse to hire someone solely because that person will not use AI tools. The nearest answer is older and more familiar: employment at will generally lets employers set methods of work, but that presumption gives way once the rule functions as an employment criterion and begins to interact with discrimination law, accommodation law, state AI-employment statutes, or labor law. [^ncsl-at-will-employment-overview][^42-u-s-c-2000e-2-a][^42-u-s-c-12112-b-6][^illinois-human-rights-act-775-ilcs-5-2-102][^nlrb-general-counsel-issues-memo-on-unlawful-ele] The distinction that seems to matter most is between requiring output or proficiency in AI-shaped workflows and scoring employees on AI usage itself. The first looks more like ordinary managerial control. The second looks more like a selection or discipline criterion, which is where existing law starts to bite. [^shopify-ceo-tells-teams-to-consider-using-ai-bef][^ogletree-deakins-the-ai-workplace-a-guide-on-ai][^morgan-lewis-ai-in-the-workplace-the-new-legal-l] The default rule remains at-will employment. In most states, that means a private employer can usually change the tools, workflows, and productivity methods attached to a role. But at-will employment is a presumption, not a permission slip. California's *Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.*, 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980), and New Jersey's *Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.*, 84 N.J. 58 (1980), are reminders that a discharge can still be actionable when it collides with a clear public policy. [^tameny-v-atlantic-richfield-co-27-cal-3d-167-198][^pierce-v-ortho-pharmaceutical-corp-84-n-j-58-198] That matters here because a refusal to use AI will not always be about reluctance to adopt a new tool. It could instead be a refusal to put protected data into an unauthorized system, a refusal to rely on an inaccessible interface, or a refusal to carry out a discriminatory AI-scored workflow. The firms are not saying mandatory AI use is clearly lawful. They are saying the question is governed by existing employment law, not by some new free-floating category called AI resistance. Littler's March 2025 piece treats AI policy as a way to narrow legal exposure, and it keeps returning to training, scope, and role design rather than to any theory that employers can simply declare AI use mandatory and be done with it. [^littler-mendelson-considerations-for-artificial] Ogletree's AI-policy podcast makes a similar point in plainer terms: an AI rule that exists only on paper is not enough, because the employer still needs a real purpose, enforceable guardrails, and some operational readiness behind the policy. [^ogletree-deakins-the-ai-workplace-a-guide-on-ai] Fisher Phillips and Morgan Lewis are closer to each other than they first look. Fisher Phillips emphasizes policy, training, and continuity with ordinary labor and employment rules; its February 2026 testimony summary says employee rights under collective bargaining, wage-and-hour, and workplace-safety law still apply even when AI is involved. [^fisher-phillips-the-10-things-all-employers-must][^fisher-phillips-what-responsible-ai-use-means-fo] Morgan Lewis, meanwhile, keeps stressing that AI does not move responsibility away from the employer. Its 2024 pieces treat job descriptions, oversight, and anti-discrimination accountability as the real center of gravity, even when the system itself comes from a third party. [^morgan-lewis-ai-in-the-workplace-the-new-legal-l][^morgan-lewis-us-department-of-labor-publishes-gu] ## When does mandatory AI use create discrimination or accommodation risk? {#ai-use-discrimination-accommodation} **Short answer.** The risk rises when AI use becomes a hiring, promotion, discipline, or performance criterion rather than a neutral work method. Once the mandate becomes a hiring, promotion, or discipline criterion, Title VII is the first federal stop. The statute makes it unlawful to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual because of a protected trait, and its disparate-impact provision asks whether the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. [^42-u-s-c-2000e-2-a-2] An AI-use requirement could fit that framework if it disproportionately burdens a protected group through typing speed, language expectations, cognitive load, speech interaction, or constant-availability assumptions. The White House's April 23, 2025 executive order on disparate impact changed federal enforcement posture, but it did not amend the statute. That means the legal theory appears narrower as a policy priority than it was in 2024, yet it still exists as text and as private-claim architecture. [^white-house-restoring-equality-of-opportunity-an][^mayer-brown-trump-executive-order-seeks-to-elimi][^ogletree-deakins-president-trump-signs-executive] The ADA may be the cleaner fit. It bars discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability, requires reasonable accommodation absent undue hardship, and separately prohibits qualification standards or other criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. [^42-u-s-c-12112-b-6-2][^42-u-s-c-12111-8] That makes AI-use mandates unusually sensitive to interface design. If the worker can do the essential functions without personally using the mandated interface, the dispute could become whether AI use is actually essential or merely the employer's preferred method. The EEOC's AI materials do not speak directly to mandatory AI use, but they do say federal discrimination law applies to AI-enabled monitoring, productivity assessment, pay, promotion, and firing just as it applies to any other employment practice. [^eeoc-what-is-the-eeoc-s-role-in-ai][^eeoc-artificial-intelligence-and-the-ada] Religious accommodation is a narrower edge case, but it is no longer theoretical. Title VII defines religion broadly enough to trigger accommodation duties, and *Groff v. DeJoy*, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), now treats undue hardship as "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business"[^groff-v-dejoy-600-u-s-447-2023]. [^42-u-s-c-2000e-j][^groff-v-dejoy-600-u-s-447-2023] Ogletree Deakins is already on record that employees may ask to avoid AI tasks, use manual methods, or avoid having AI usage counted in performance metrics. Those claims may remain rare. They are still part of the doctrinal map. [^ogletree-deakins-the-mark-of-the-bot-when-employ] Ogletree is also the clearest firm source on religious objections. Its January 8, 2026 article expressly contemplates employees asking to avoid AI tasks, use manual alternatives, or avoid having AI abstinence count against them in performance review. [^ogletree-deakins-the-mark-of-the-bot-when-employ] That is important because it treats mandatory AI use as an accommodation problem before any court has done so. Where firm commentary diverges, the disagreement is mostly about emphasis. Some firms focus on the executive branch's effort to cut back disparate-impact enforcement. Others emphasize that the underlying Title VII text remains untouched. Perhaps the cleanest synthesis is that the public-enforcement climate shifted, but the private-law question did not disappear. [^ogletree-deakins-president-trump-signs-executive][^mayer-brown-trump-executive-order-seeks-to-elimi] - It is also unsettled how often direct AI-use metrics can be defended as an essential function of a role rather than as a proxy for modernity, loyalty, or pace. Written job descriptions will likely matter, but perhaps not as much as the underlying reality of how the work gets done. [^42-u-s-c-12111-8][^eeoc-artificial-intelligence-and-the-ada] - Another open question is how much the April 23, 2025 executive order will matter in private litigation. The firms agree that agency posture changed. They do not appear to agree that the statutory disparate-impact architecture went away. [^white-house-restoring-equality-of-opportunity-an][^mayer-brown-trump-executive-order-seeks-to-elimi][^ogletree-deakins-president-trump-signs-executive] - Religious objections are plainly possible in theory and still hard to size in practice. Ogletree's article makes the doctrinal route visible, but there is still no reported line of cases about employees objecting to workplace AI use on that basis. [^ogletree-deakins-the-mark-of-the-bot-when-employ][^groff-v-dejoy-600-u-s-447-2023] ## Which state AI employment laws apply to mandatory AI use? {#state-ai-employment-laws} **Short answer.** State AI laws matter most when the mandate is tied to employment decisions such as hiring, discipline, discharge, or conditions of employment. State AI law matters when the mandate is embedded in employment decision-making rather than ordinary workflow. Illinois now makes it unlawful to use AI in covered employment decisions if the use has a discriminatory effect, and it separately requires notice when AI is used for those purposes.recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, or the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment [^illinois-human-rights-act-775-ilcs-5-2-102-2][^illinois-public-act-103-0804][^illinois-department-of-human-rights-artificial-i] California's automated decision system rules, effective October 1, 2025, do not create a standalone right to remain AI-free. They do make clearer that FEHA reaches AI or other computational processes used to make or assist employment decisions. [^california-civil-rights-council-secures-approval][^california-civil-rights-council-rulemaking-actio] Colorado is relevant but not yet operative here: the AI Act's effective date was pushed to June 30, 2026, so on April 20, 2026 it is background law, not current law. [^colorado-sb24-205][^colorado-sb25b-004] ## How should tech companies roll out mandatory AI use without creating metrics risk? {#ai-workflow-performance-metrics} **Short answer.** Separate AI-shaped output expectations from direct AI-usage scoring, and support the mandate with role design, training, and vendor controls. The first consequence is that public corporate practice has already moved beyond voluntary experimentation. Shopify is the clearest example. Tobi Lütke's April 7, 2025 memo said "Reflexive AI usage is now a baseline expectation at Shopify"[^tobi-lutke-reflexive-ai-usage-is-now-a-baseline] and tied AI use to headcount requests and review processes. [^tobi-lutke-reflexive-ai-usage-is-now-a-baseline][^shopify-ceo-tells-teams-to-consider-using-ai-bef-2] Box's public posture is softer in language but similar in direction: an AI-first company, broader access to tools, company-wide upskilling, and changed output expectations. [^aaron-levie-at-box-we-are-focused-on-building-an][^box-ai-first-transformation-box-s-principles-str][^box-imagining-the-emerging-role-of-the-ai-manage] So the practical question is no longer whether companies will try this. It is how the legal system will describe what they are already doing. The second consequence is that the line between a workflow rule and an employment criterion now carries most of the load. A company that says this role must meet output expectations inside an AI-shaped workflow looks closer to ordinary tool modernization. A company that says AI usage itself will be graded, and low usage will count against you looks closer to a new screening or discipline metric. Existing law is better developed for the second category than the first. [^42-u-s-c-2000e-2-a-3][^42-u-s-c-12112-b-6-3][^illinois-human-rights-act-775-ilcs-5-2-102-3] The third consequence is that training is becoming part of the liability story, not just part of change management. The Department of Labor's February and March 2026 AI-literacy materials do not create employer mandates, but they do make it easier to argue that AI competence can be a legitimate workforce-development goal. [^u-s-department-of-labor-releases-ai-literacy-fra][^u-s-department-of-labor-ten-07-25][^u-s-department-of-labor-make-america-ai-ready] At the same time, a mandate with weak training makes the employer-side business necessity story less persuasive and the employee-side access story more persuasive. That is especially true where disability, language, or role design makes the interface itself part of the dispute rather than the output. The fourth consequence is that enterprise vendor terms solve less than they first appear to solve. OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic all say, in substance, that business-customer data is not used to train public models by default. [^openai-enterprise-privacy-at-openai][^microsoft-learn-data-privacy-and-security-for-mi][^anthropic-privacy-center-is-my-data-used-for-mod] That weakens the simple objection that a company mandate always forces employees to feed work product into public training. But it does not answer whether the tool is accessible, whether the rule has a disparate effect, whether a particular job really requires direct use, or whether the employer is grading the wrong thing. - The biggest unsettled question is whether courts will treat mandatory AI use as a simple proficiency requirement or as a new employment criterion in its own right. Perhaps the answer will turn less on the words in the policy than on what the employer actually measures. [^ogletree-deakins-the-ai-workplace-a-guide-on-ai-2][^morgan-lewis-ai-in-the-workplace-the-new-legal-l-2] - Role-based mandates may cut both ways. They could help employers show job relatedness. They could also create selective-enforcement stories if the burdens and exceptions map awkwardly onto protected groups, older workers, disabled workers, or labor-protected employees. No court has yet drawn that line in the AI-use setting. [^42-u-s-c-2000e-2-a-3][^42-u-s-c-12112-b-6-3][^fisher-phillips-what-responsible-ai-use-means-fo-2] ## When does mandatory AI use become a labor-law or monitoring problem? {#ai-monitoring-labor-law} **Short answer.** The labor-law risk grows when the AI workflow also changes surveillance, quotas, pace-setting, discipline, or bargaining obligations. Labor law sits beside all of this. The NLRB General Counsel's 2022 memo on electronic surveillance and automated management says these systems can unlawfully interfere with Section 7 rights, *Stericycle* tightened review of facially neutral work rules, and *Endurance Environmental Solutions* restored the clear and unmistakable waiver standard for unilateral changes affecting represented workers. [^nlrb-general-counsel-issues-memo-on-unlawful-ele-2][^nlrb-board-adopts-new-standard-for-assessing-law][^nlrb-board-returns-to-clear-and-unmistakable-wai] So an AI-use mandate becomes a labor-law problem when it also changes surveillance, quotas, pace-setting, discipline, or bargaining obligations. The fifth consequence is that unions and monitoring-heavy environments are different. In those settings, a mandatory AI workflow could be experienced less as a productivity tool and more as a combined system for pace, measurement, and discipline. That is where the NLRB materials matter most, and where an otherwise ordinary AI-use rule could start to look like a unilateral change in working conditions or a new surveillance regime. [^nlrb-general-counsel-issues-memo-on-unlawful-ele-2][^nlrb-board-adopts-new-standard-for-assessing-law][^nlrb-board-returns-to-clear-and-unmistakable-wai] [^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-04-20. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. edits this topic article for Federal + multi-state coverage. It synthesizes legal sources and is not legal advice. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. [^ncsl-at-will-employment-overview]: **NCSL, At-Will Employment - Overview** — "Employment relationships are presumed to be ‘at-will’ in all U.S. states except Montana." *NCSL, At-Will Employment - Overview.* [^42-u-s-c-2000e-2-a]: **42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)** — "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" *42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).* [^42-u-s-c-12112-b-6]: **42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6)** — "No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." *42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6).* [^illinois-human-rights-act-775-ilcs-5-2-102]: **Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102** — "For an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under this Article or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under this Article." *Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102.* [^nlrb-general-counsel-issues-memo-on-unlawful-ele]: **NLRB, General Counsel Issues Memo on Unlawful Electronic Surveillance and Automated Management Practices** — "General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo announced her intention to protect employees, to the greatest extent possible, from intrusive or abusive electronic monitoring and automated management practices" *NLRB, General Counsel Issues Memo on Unlawful Electronic Surveillance and Automated Management Practices.* [^shopify-ceo-tells-teams-to-consider-using-ai-bef]: **Shopify CEO tells teams to consider using AI before growing headcount** — "teams must demonstrate why they cannot get what they want done using AI" *Shopify CEO tells teams to consider using AI before growing headcount.* [^ogletree-deakins-the-ai-workplace-a-guide-on-ai]: **Ogletree Deakins commentary** — "it is important that employers seek legal, ethical, and regulatory guidance when implementing AI platforms in their workspaces." *Ogletree Deakins, The AI Workplace: A Guide on AI Policy Essentials.* [^morgan-lewis-ai-in-the-workplace-the-new-legal-l]: **Morgan Lewis commentary** — "a poorly designed or trained AI tool has the potential to discriminate on a much larger scale." *Morgan Lewis, AI in the Workplace: The New Legal Landscape Facing US Employers.* [^tameny-v-atlantic-richfield-co-27-cal-3d-167-198]: **Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980)** — "when an employer's discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions." *Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167 (1980).* [^pierce-v-ortho-pharmaceutical-corp-84-n-j-58-198]: **Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980)** — "We hold that an employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the discharge is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy." *Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980).* [^littler-mendelson-considerations-for-artificial]: **Littler Mendelson commentary** — "employers should consider adopting an AI policy to ensure that their use of AI is responsible, ethical, and legally compliant." *Littler Mendelson, Considerations for Artificial Intelligence Policies in the Workplace.* [^fisher-phillips-the-10-things-all-employers-must]: **Fisher Phillips commentary** — "A first step is developing a workplace GenAI policy." *Fisher Phillips, The 10 Things All Employers Must Include in Any Workplace AI Policy.* [^fisher-phillips-what-responsible-ai-use-means-fo]: **Fisher Phillips commentary** — "Walton cautioned them not to go too far, particularly since established employment and labor laws already apply." *Fisher Phillips, What Responsible AI Use Means for Employers: 4 Takeaways from FP’s Recent Capitol Hill Testimony.* [^morgan-lewis-us-department-of-labor-publishes-gu]: **Morgan Lewis commentary** — "The OFCCP plans to treat AI models like other selection procedures, so federal contractors need to be able to articulate how their AI models operate and maintain records that substantiate these explanations." *Morgan Lewis, US Department of Labor Publishes Guidelines Addressing Use of AI in Employment Decisions.* [^42-u-s-c-2000e-2-a-2]: **42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)** — "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" *42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).* [^white-house-restoring-equality-of-opportunity-an]: **White House, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy** — "It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals." *White House, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.* [^mayer-brown-trump-executive-order-seeks-to-elimi]: **Mayer Brown commentary** — "The Order announces the Administration’s intent to ‘seek to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.’" *Mayer Brown, Trump Executive Order Seeks to Eliminate Disparate-Impact Liability.* [^ogletree-deakins-president-trump-signs-executive]: **Ogletree Deakins, President Trump Signs Executive Order Seeking to End Disparate Impact Discrimination** — "President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending the legal theory of disparate impact discrimination by deprioritizing its enforcement within federal regulations, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." *Ogletree Deakins, President Trump Signs Executive Order Seeking to End Disparate Impact Discrimination.* [^42-u-s-c-12112-b-6-2]: **42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6)** — "No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." *42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6).* [^42-u-s-c-12111-8]: **42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)** — "The term ‘qualified individual’ means an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." *42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).* [^eeoc-what-is-the-eeoc-s-role-in-ai]: **EEOC, What is the EEOC's role in AI?** — "These laws apply to the use of AI and other new technologies in employment just as they apply to other employment practices." *EEOC, What is the EEOC's role in AI?.* [^eeoc-artificial-intelligence-and-the-ada]: **EEOC, Artificial Intelligence and the ADA** — "The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Use of Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence to Assess Job Applicants and Employees" *EEOC, Artificial Intelligence and the ADA.* [^groff-v-dejoy-600-u-s-447-2023]: **Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023)** — "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business" *Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023).* [^42-u-s-c-2000e-j]: **42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j)** — "Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 92–261, § 2(7), added subsec. (j)." *42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).* [^ogletree-deakins-the-mark-of-the-bot-when-employ]: **Ogletree Deakins commentary** — "Federal and state laws require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious beliefs, unless it would impose an undue hardship." *Ogletree Deakins, The Mark of the Bot: When Employees Raise Religious Objections to Workplace AI Usage.* [^illinois-human-rights-act-775-ilcs-5-2-102-2]: **Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102** — "For an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under this Article or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under this Article." *Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102.* [^illinois-public-act-103-0804]: **Illinois Public Act 103-0804** — "for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under this Article or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under this Article." *Illinois Public Act 103-0804.* [^illinois-department-of-human-rights-artificial-i]: **Illinois Department of Human Rights, Artificial Intelligence in Employment (P...** — "This law establishes requirements for employers using artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems in hiring and employment." *Illinois Department of Human Rights, Artificial Intelligence in Employment (Public Act 103-0804).* [^california-civil-rights-council-secures-approval]: **California Civil Rights Council Secures Approval for Regulations to Protect A...** — "The California Civil Rights Council today announced securing final approval for regulations to protect against potential employment discrimination as a result of the use of artificial intelligence, algorithms, and other automated-decision systems." *California Civil Rights Council Secures Approval for Regulations to Protect Against Employment Discrimination Related to Artificial Intelligence.* [^california-civil-rights-council-rulemaking-actio]: **California Civil Rights Council Rulemaking Actions** — "The Council’s Employment Regulations Regarding Automated Decision Systems have been approved by the Office of Administrative Law and were filed with the Secretary of State on June 27, 2025." *California Civil Rights Council Rulemaking Actions.* [^colorado-sb24-205]: **Colorado SB24-205** — "On and after February 1, 2026, the act requires a developer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system (high-risk system) to use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination in the high-risk system." *Colorado SB24-205.* [^colorado-sb25b-004]: **Colorado SB25B-004** — "The act extends the effective date of the requirements of Senate Bill 24-205 to June 30, 2026." *Colorado SB25B-004.* [^tobi-lutke-reflexive-ai-usage-is-now-a-baseline]: **Tobi Lutke, Reflexive AI usage is now a baseline expectation at Shopify** — "Reflexive AI usage is now a baseline expectation at Shopify" *Tobi Lutke, Reflexive AI usage is now a baseline expectation at Shopify.* [^shopify-ceo-tells-teams-to-consider-using-ai-bef-2]: **Shopify CEO tells teams to consider using AI before growing headcount** — "teams must demonstrate why they cannot get what they want done using AI" *Shopify CEO tells teams to consider using AI before growing headcount.* [^aaron-levie-at-box-we-are-focused-on-building-an]: **Aaron Levie, At Box, we are focused on building an AI-first company** — "At Box, we are focused on building an AI-first company." *Aaron Levie, At Box, we are focused on building an AI-first company.* [^box-ai-first-transformation-box-s-principles-str]: **Box, AI-First Transformation: Box’s Principles, Strategy, and Execution Framework** — "Box’s AI executive sponsorship is led by Olivia Nottebohm, the company’s COO, Ravi Malick, the CIO, and Jessica Swank, Chief People Officer, to represent business, IT and people aspects — all of which are critical." *Box, AI-First Transformation: Box’s Principles, Strategy, and Execution Framework.* [^box-imagining-the-emerging-role-of-the-ai-manage]: **Box, Imagining the emerging role of the AI manager** — "Once an agent has moved through rollout and scaled adoption into the wild, the AI manager bears day-to-day responsibility for ensuring the agent is performing as expected, gathering feedback on how it’s being used, how it’s performing, and how the team can update and improve its functionality." *Box, Imagining the emerging role of the AI manager.* [^42-u-s-c-2000e-2-a-3]: **42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)** — "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" *42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).* [^42-u-s-c-12112-b-6-3]: **42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6)** — "No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." *42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6).* [^illinois-human-rights-act-775-ilcs-5-2-102-3]: **Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102** — "For an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under this Article or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under this Article." *Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102.* [^u-s-department-of-labor-releases-ai-literacy-fra]: **U.S. Department of Labor releases AI literacy framework** — "The U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration today published a framework for Artificial Intelligence literacy, providing a foundation to guide nationwide AI literacy efforts across workforce and education systems." *U.S. Department of Labor releases AI literacy framework.* [^u-s-department-of-labor-ten-07-25]: **U.S. Department of Labor, TEN 07-25** — "To issue the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL or Department) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy Framework as a resource for program design and encourage expanded AI literacy training across the public workforce and education systems." *U.S. Department of Labor, TEN 07-25.* [^u-s-department-of-labor-make-america-ai-ready]: **U.S. Department of Labor, Make America AI-Ready** — "The initiative advances the Trump Administration’s commitment to equip American workers with foundational AI skills needed to succeed in an AI-driven economy" *U.S. Department of Labor, Make America AI-Ready.* [^openai-enterprise-privacy-at-openai]: **OpenAI, Enterprise privacy at OpenAI** — "We do not train our models on your data by default" *OpenAI, Enterprise privacy at OpenAI.* [^microsoft-learn-data-privacy-and-security-for-mi]: **Microsoft Learn, Data, Privacy, and Security for Microsoft 365 Copilot** — "Prompts, responses, and data accessed through Microsoft Graph aren't used to train foundation LLMs, including those used by Microsoft 365 Copilot." *Microsoft Learn, Data, Privacy, and Security for Microsoft 365 Copilot.* [^anthropic-privacy-center-is-my-data-used-for-mod]: **Anthropic Privacy Center, Is my data used for model training?** — "By default, we will not use your inputs or outputs from our commercial products (e.g. Claude for Work, Anthropic API, Claude Gov, etc.) to train our models." *Anthropic Privacy Center, Is my data used for model training?.* [^ogletree-deakins-the-ai-workplace-a-guide-on-ai-2]: **Ogletree Deakins commentary** — "it is important that employers seek legal, ethical, and regulatory guidance when implementing AI platforms in their workspaces." *Ogletree Deakins, The AI Workplace: A Guide on AI Policy Essentials.* [^morgan-lewis-ai-in-the-workplace-the-new-legal-l-2]: **Morgan Lewis commentary** — "a poorly designed or trained AI tool has the potential to discriminate on a much larger scale." *Morgan Lewis, AI in the Workplace: The New Legal Landscape Facing US Employers.* [^fisher-phillips-what-responsible-ai-use-means-fo-2]: **Fisher Phillips commentary** — "Walton cautioned them not to go too far, particularly since established employment and labor laws already apply." *Fisher Phillips, What Responsible AI Use Means for Employers: 4 Takeaways from FP’s Recent Capitol Hill Testimony.* [^nlrb-general-counsel-issues-memo-on-unlawful-ele-2]: **NLRB, General Counsel Issues Memo on Unlawful Electronic Surveillance and Automated Management Practices** — "General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo announced her intention to protect employees, to the greatest extent possible, from intrusive or abusive electronic monitoring and automated management practices" *NLRB, General Counsel Issues Memo on Unlawful Electronic Surveillance and Automated Management Practices.* [^nlrb-board-adopts-new-standard-for-assessing-law]: **NLRB, Board Adopts New Standard for Assessing Lawfulness of Work Rules** — "the NLRB issued a decision in Stericycle Inc., adopting a new legal standard for evaluating employer work rules challenged as facially unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act." *NLRB, Board Adopts New Standard for Assessing Lawfulness of Work Rules.* [^nlrb-board-returns-to-clear-and-unmistakable-wai]: **NLRB, Board Returns to 'Clear and Unmistakable Waiver' Standard** — "restored the ‘clear and unmistakable’ waiver standard for evaluating employers’ contractual defenses to allegations that they have unlawfully changed the working conditions of union-represented employees" *NLRB, Board Returns to 'Clear and Unmistakable Waiver' Standard.*