This article is the third in the AI Workplace series. Part 2: From Harrisburg to the White House, Allison Lonas examined the growing legal uncertainty surrounding the adoption of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in employment practices, highlighting Pennsylvania’s early efforts to regulate AI and the wider federal and state landscapes. This article focuses on how Pennsylvania’s neighbors are approaching AI in employment. This provides a comparative view that highlights a patchwork of new legal obligations across state lines.
Some nearby states are already taking action as Pennsylvania is considering ways to regulate and approach artificial intelligence (“AI”). This article summarizes the impact on local employers facing a growing patchwork of states that all states adjoin the federal states – and state legal obligations to date major legal developments in New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio and West Virginia. Let’s take a quick look at how the states surrounding Pennsylvania are working on AI in employment.
New Jersey: Extends anti-discrimination laws to AI tools
In January 2025, the New Jersey Attorney General and the Civil Rights Division issued guidance clarifying how New Jersey law (“NJLAD”) applies to the use of automated decision-making tools in the workplace. This guidance confirms that employers may be liable for illegal consequences resulting from discrimination in the algorithm. New Jersey is at the forefront of addressing algorithmic discrimination by revealing that existing anti-discrimination laws are extended to AI-assisted employment decisions.
New York: NYC lays the foundation for statewide regulation while mandating transparency and bias audits
New York has yet to implement AI-specific employment regulations, but New York City (“NYC”) requires transparency and bias audits. NYC has enacted the 2021 Local Method 144 to regulate automated employment decision tools by imposing requirements on employers. Under Local Law 144 in 2021, employers must:
Before using an independent bias audit of automated employment decision tools, we will publish the audit results and provide applicants with advance notice of use of such tools and the data collected.
The law applies to tools that “substantially support or replace” discretionary decision-making in the workplace. New York has yet to follow suit, but there is clear legislative interest in extending surveillance across cities, indicating that broader regulations could be on the horizon.
Maryland: Consent before using facial recognition
Maryland has adopted a focused approach to regulating AI in its employment process. Maryland law prohibits employers from using facial recognition technology during pre-employment interviews unless the applicant provides written consent. This state law reflects growing concern over potential biases resulting from the use of AI tools. Though narrower than other state frameworks, Maryland law shows its willingness to regulate AI in the future. Relatedly, in 2024, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore issued an executive order recognizing the potential bias of AI systems and encouraging responsible use within the government. Though not employment-specific, the order strengthens the state’s broader perception of discrimination risks associated with AI.
Delaware: A committee established to review AI
In July 2024, Delaware established a 23-member AI committee to research and evaluate AI use. The committee is tasked with making recommendations to the enforcement, judicial and legislative departments regarding the development of guidelines for the use of AI. However, the state has not enacted any substantial AI laws.
Ohio: Council has been formed, but there are no substantial AI regulations for employers
Ohio has yet to enact AI-specific employment laws, but it has formed a task force to study the broader implications of AI and automation in the workplace. Legislative proposals are in the early stages focusing on workforce development, privacy and accountability.
Additionally, Ohio established the Council of Artificial Intelligence (“Councils”) and issued policies that guided the use of AI within state governments. The Council is tasked with ethical implementation and overseeing the responsible use of AI in public bodies. These steps reflect Ohio’s intention to establish himself as a leader in AI governance, but there is currently no substantial AI law governing the use of AI in employers’ employment.
West Virginia: There are no AI-specific laws, but an AI task force has been formed
Although West Virginia does not have AI-specific employment laws, a state task force has been established to study various aspects of AI, including its impact on the workforce and employment. Although there is no regulatory framework for employers at present, the task force findings could shape future legislation in this area. Like other jurisdictions targeting AI law, employers must recognize the liability they may face in the future from the use of algorithmic tools that produce illegal outcomes in the workplace.
Conclusion: Navigate fragmented, evolving legal landscapes
It is clear that employers operating in the states surrounding Pennsylvania are navigating various legal requirements when using AI in the workplace. However, general themes such as transparency, accountability, consent, and responsibility have emerged. While many jurisdictions do not have AI-specific employment laws, existing anti-discrimination laws provide a framework to address the potential biases and discriminatory consequences that arise from the use of AI in employment.
To minimize risk and ensure compliance, employers should regularly assess the use of AI against both current legal requirements and emerging policy trends. As AI’s legal landscape continues to unfold, it is essential to provide information and stay proactive.
