Prepare for the Rise of AI in the Workplace

August 29, 2024

Attention, Employers

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing how we live and work. To keep up with this technological revolution, both federal and state governments are introducing new rules to ensure AI is used responsibly in the workplace. Here’s an overview of what you need to know about recent federal, state, and local AI developments.


The White House’s Executive Order

In October 2023, President Biden issued a groundbreaking executive order on the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” This order pushed federal agencies to create guidelines ensuring AI is used responsibly, especially at work. The goal is to make sure AI helps improve workplaces without causing unfair treatment or discrimination.


Department of Labor’s New Guidelines

Wage and Hour Division’s Bulletin: On April 29, the Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division released a bulletin explaining the risks of using AI at work. This bulletin emphasizes the inherent risks associated with AI use and underscores that AI should not replace human oversight. According to the guidelines outlined in FAB, employers must ensure that responsible human oversight accompanies the deployment of AI technologies.


Given the various challenges associated with AI technologies, it is crucial for employers to navigate the complexities while adhering to laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and others, which stipulate that employers remain accountable for legal issues arising from the use of AI. Even if AI systems autonomously take adverse actions against employees, such actions could potentially constitute retaliation under FLSA and related statutes.

 

Guidance of Federal Contractors: On April 29, the DOL Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued guidelines aimed at federal contractors utilizing AI, which are valuable for all employers to consider.


These guidelines emphasize several critical practices for the ethical and effective deployment of AI tools in the workplace. Employers are advised to ensure that AI technologies are not only fair and job-related, but also regularly monitored for biases that could inadvertently impact decision-making processes. Additionally, keeping employees well-informed about the use and implications of AI systems fosters transparency and helps mitigate potential concerns or misunderstandings.

These proactive measures not only enhance compliance with federal regulations, but also promote a more inclusive and equitable work environment where AI technologies are used responsibly to benefit both employers and employees alike.


AI Principles for Employers: On May 16, the DOL introduced a comprehensive set of principles aimed at guiding the development and implementation of AI technologies in the workplace. These principles underscore the importance of ethical considerations and employee welfare in AI deployment. They stress the need to keep workers informed about how AI is utilized, ensure transparency in AI decision-making processes, and safeguard worker data throughout the entire AI life cycle.


These guidelines aim to foster a fair and secure work environment where AI enhances operations while upholding privacy and ethical standards. Adhering to these principles helps employers build trust, mitigate risks, and integrate AI technologies responsibly for the benefit of all stakeholders.

 

State-level Developments

New York: Since July 5, 2023, New York city has a law regulating automated employment decision tools (AEDTs). Employers must conduct annual audits to check for bias, publish the results, and let applicants know when AEDTs are used. In addition, a new bill introduced this past February aims to regulate AEDTs across New York State. This bill requires annual bias analyses and public summaries of the findings.


New Jersey: In February, two bills were introduced in New Jersey to manage AI in hiring. One bill requires annual bias audits for AEDTs. The other regulates AI-enabled video interviews, demanding transparency and consent from applications.


Other States: California is working on regulations to prevent algorithmic discrimination and ensure AI tools are used transparently and responsibly. Starting Feb. 1, 2026, Colorado will require AI developers and users to protect against discrimination with high-risk AI systems. And both Illinois and Maryland have laws in place requiring employers to notify and get consent from applicants before using AI in hiring.

 

What Should Employers Do?

To navigate these new regulations and ensure compliance, employers should:

• Stay informed. Regularly review federal and state guidelines on AI use in the workplace.

• Conduct regular audits of AI tools to detect and mitigate bias or inequitable outcomes.

• Ensure transparency by clearly communicating to employees and applicants about the use of AI in employment decisions and their rights related to AI.

• Provide training to HR and management teams on the ethical and responsible use of AI tools.

• Consult with legal experts to say ahead of regulatory changes and implement best practices tailored to your organization.

 

Conclusion

As AI continues to evolve and integrate into the workplace, new and expanded laws will emerge to govern its use. Employers must proactively adapt to these changes to harness AI’s benefits while ensuring compliance with legal standards. If you have questions about any of these developments, it is prudent to consult with labor and employment counsel.


Sabba Salebaigi-Tse is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.


Sabba Salebaigi-Tse wrote this article which was featured in Businesswest. Click here to visit their website.

By The Royal Law Firm August 19, 2025
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP , a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.
By The Royal Law Firm August 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and mental disability. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and complainant could not prove that they experienced an adverse employment action. The CHRO agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of reasonable cause.