Tag Archives: Rachel Tennell

The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Affirmative Action Decision: Potential Implications for Private-Sector Employers

by Jyotin Hamid, Simone S. Hicks, Mary Beth Hogan, Arian M. June, Tricia Bozyk Sherno, Rachel Tennell, and Katelyn Masket

Photos of the authors

Top row from left to right: Jyotin Hamid, Simone S. Hicks, Mary Beth Hogan, and Arian M. June.
Bottom row from left to right: Tricia Bozyk Sherno, Rachel Tennell, and Katelyn Masket.
(Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to issue a widely anticipated decision next month concerning the permissibility of race-conscious affirmative action in higher education in the Harvard College and University of North Carolina cases.[1] Although these cases arise in the context of education, not employment, and do not formally concern laws governing private-sector employment, we expect that the decision may have far-reaching implications for how courts, lawmakers, employers, and employees address efforts to promote diversity in private-sector workplaces. In particular, the decision may have an impact on how employers navigate the line between permissible efforts to promote workplace diversity and avoiding so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits brought by employees who may claim that they are disadvantaged by such efforts.

Continue reading

Complying with New York’s AI Employment Law and Similar Regulations

by Avi Gesser, Jyotin Hamid, Tricia Bozyk Sherno, Anna Gressel, Scott M. Caravello, and Rachel Tennell

A growing number of employers are turning to artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools to assist  500 companies use talent-sifting software, and more than half of human resource leaders in the U.S. leverage predictive algorithms to support hiring. Widespread adoption of these tools has led to concerns from regulators and legislators that they may be inadvertently discriminating, for example, by:

  • Penalizing job candidates with gaps in their resumes, leading to a bias against older women who have taken time off for childcare;
  • Recommending candidates for interviews who resemble the company’s current leadership, which is not diverse; or
  • Using automated games that are unfairly difficult for individuals with disabilities to evaluate employees for promotions, even though they could do the job with a reasonable accommodation.

Continue reading