FAQ Category
AI & HR Technology FAQs
AI screening tools, TRAIGA, manager use of ChatGPT, and the governance Texas employers need before AI touches hiring, discipline, or employee data.
Last updated: July 03, 2026 • 6 answers in this category
- Can HR upload employee information into AI tools?
- Can managers use ChatGPT to write employee discipline?
- Can Texas employers use AI to screen job applicants?
- What AI hiring mistakes create discrimination risk?
- What does the Texas AI law (TRAIGA) mean for employers?
- What should an AI use policy say for HR and managers?
What actually governs AI in Texas hiring — and what does not
Controlling authority: Title VII and the ADA, which govern by disparate impact regardless of intent, and TRAIGA, which is intent-based and enforceable only by the Texas Attorney General.
| Source | What it does | What it does not do |
|---|---|---|
| Title VII and the ADA | Still the operative risk. Disparate impact liability attaches regardless of intent, and regardless of whether a vendor built the tool | It does not excuse you because the algorithm is a third party’s. |
| TRAIGA (effective 1 January 2026) | Prohibits developing or deploying AI with the specific intent to discriminate on protected characteristics, plus a narrow set of other prohibited uses | It is intent-based, not impact-based. It was pared back substantially before passage and imposes far less on private employers than commentary suggests. |
| TRAIGA enforcement | The Texas Attorney General only | There is no private right of action. Your TRAIGA exposure is regulatory, not litigation. |
| The four-fifths rule | The screen that will actually surface your problem | It is a triage indicator, not a safe harbour above 0.80. |
| EEOC AI technical assistance | Removed from the EEOC website on 27 January 2025 | Those were non-binding technical assistance documents. Removing them changed the explanation, not the obligation. Title VII and the ADA are untouched. |
| Your vendor contract | Allocates cost and cooperation between you and the vendor | It does not transfer liability to the vendor. The employer is the one that made the decision. |
What to require from a vendor before you deploy
| Requirement | What to ask for | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Adverse impact testing | Results by race, sex, ethnicity and age, on your applicant pool | A vendor’s aggregate testing says nothing about your population. |
| Validation evidence | Job-relatedness and business necessity, documented | This is the defence if impact appears. |
| What the model actually scores | The features and their weights, at least in summary | You cannot defend a decision you cannot describe. |
| Accommodation pathway | A documented alternative for candidates who cannot use the tool | An ADA obligation the vendor will not discharge for you. |
| Human review point | Where a person can override, and on what basis | A fully automated rejection is the hardest fact pattern to defend. |
| Audit and data rights | Your right to test, and to export your own data | Without it you cannot run the four-fifths screen at all. |
| Change notification | Notice before the model is retrained or changed | A silent model update can move your selection rates overnight. |
Free tool
Scores policy language against the obligations it is supposed to discharge.
Have a Situation, Not Just a Question?
Every answer in this category comes from real employer situations. If yours is live right now, talk it through with a senior HR consultant before you act.
Contact Us