桃子视频

SACRAMENTO鈥� Today, the 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Northern California filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) urging an investigation of Criteria Corporation, a technology corporation that develops and sells assessments used for hiring and other employment processes that raise concerns about discrimination against applicants based on disability, race, and sex. The complaint focuses on one of Criteria鈥檚 assessment products, Emotify, which claims to measure 鈥渆motional intelligence鈥� and an applicant鈥檚 ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions by asking candidates to interpret facial expressions and match them to descriptions of emotions. Emotify鈥檚 assessment closely mirrors clinical diagnostic tests for autism and related neurodevelopmental conditions, and it may screen out or disproportionately impact qualified individuals with those conditions. 鈥淭here is a long and ugly history of job requirements designed to cut out disabled applicants. Well-qualified autistic people are routinely denied employment over things like not making eye contact, or not making small talk, that have nothing to do with ability to do the job. Baking that discrimination into an app doesn't make it any less discriminatory,鈥� said Colin Killick, executive director at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. 鈥淲hen hiring tools exclude qualified applicants based on characteristics unrelated to their ability to do the work, they raise serious concerns under discrimination laws.鈥� 鈥淲hen employers use assessment tools that are more likely to reveal a person鈥檚 disabilities rather than their ability to do the job, employers risk missing out on highly qualified candidates. These hiring tools pose an unacceptable risk of amplifying existing discrimination in the workplace and exacerbating harmful barriers to employment for people with disabilities,鈥� said Brian Dimmick, senior staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 Disability Rights Program. 鈥淣o applicant should be subjected to a hiring assessment that so closely mirrors clinical diagnostic tools. It's patently unlawful in the early stages of a hiring process, and vendors marketing such products and employers using them in this way risk liability,鈥� said Olga Akselrod, senior counsel, 桃子视频Racial Justice Program. 鈥淲hat鈥檚 more, vendors should not be marketing assessments that carry a high risk of discrimination based on disabilities, race, and other protected characteristics. Both vendors and employers have a legal obligation to thoroughly vet any assessments to ensure that they comply with anti-discrimination laws.鈥� 鈥淐alifornia has been a leader in protecting people from the harms of discriminatory automated systems, such as AI screening tools that can introduce racial, gender, and disability bias into the hiring process,鈥� said Grayce Zelphin, senior staff attorney at the 桃子视频of Northern California. 鈥淏y investigating Criteria鈥檚 employment products, the California Civil Rights Department has an opportunity to defend qualified job applicants from unlawful discrimination.鈥� The use of Emotify during the hiring process could violate California鈥檚 Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because the assessment parallels the content of clinical diagnostic tools and is likely to reveal information pertaining to a disability, it likely constitutes a disability-related inquiry, or medical or psychological examination, and is likely to result in unfairly excluding applicants. Both FEHA and the ADA prohibit employers from making disability-related inquiries or requiring medical examinations before a conditional offer of employment, only permitting inquiries into an applicant鈥檚 ability to perform job-related functions at that stage of the hiring process. In addition, Criteria also sells other pre-employment hiring products that raise concerns around discrimination detailed in the complaint, including a cognitive aptitude assessment, personality assessments, and artificial intelligence-based video interviewing and proctoring tools. The AI technologies can introduce or amplify bias by performing worse for disabled applicants, people with accents, and Black, Latine, and Indigenous speakers, leading to hiring decisions that may unfairly disadvantage qualified candidates. The complaint urges CRD to investigate Criteria鈥檚 hiring technologies and practices to determine whether they violate California鈥檚 civil rights protections. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� A federal court ruled last week that the federal agencies responsible for parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C. violated federal disability law by systematically failing to meaningfully consider and accommodate people with disabilities. The class action lawsuit was brought by two D.C. residents with disabilities, represented by the 桃子视频, 桃子视频of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP. Plaintiffs challenged the federal government鈥檚 post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. The court鈥檚 decision granted plaintiffs鈥� motion for summary judgment on liability. 鈥淭his decision makes clear that failing to provide people with all types of disabilities the accommodations they need to comply with supervision is discrimination, plain and simple,鈥� said Allison Frankel, senior staff attorney at the ACLU鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淧eople with disabilities should have a fair chance to comply with the myriad supervision rules and remain in their communities, instead of being set up to fail from the start. We are celebrating this victory for our clients, and we are committed to continue fighting to ensure that people with disabilities on supervision across the country receive the accommodations they are legally entitled to.鈥� For D.C. residents, a criminal sentence can extend for years beyond their time behind bars through parole or supervised release, which requires people to comply with myriad and onerous conditions. Failing to follow conditions, like missing a single appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. In 2021 and 2022, 10 percent of all individuals under supervision in D.C. faced violation proceedings solely for technical violations of release conditions. Among people with disabilities, the percentage was nearly twice as high (18 percent). People with disabilities are over-represented among the supervision population and face heightened barriers to meeting supervision requirements. 鈥淒iscrimination against people with disabilities is incompatible with justice,鈥� said Laura Follansbee, staff attorney at the 桃子视频of D.C. 鈥淭his ruling is an important victory for equal access, and it affirms that people with disabilities must have a genuine opportunity to succeed on parole and supervised release in D.C.鈥� The 桃子视频has documented similar barriers that people with disabilities under supervision face across the country. In 2024, the organization released a report providing guidance for people with disabilities seeking accommodations, as well as tools for advocates working to challenge systemic barriers. 鈥淔or years, the government has failed to accommodate individuals with disabilities on parole and supervised release in D.C., as required by law,鈥� said Christine Smith, associate at Latham & Watkins, who argued the motion. 鈥淭his ruling is a significant step toward securing lasting institutional reform and ensuring that all people have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision.鈥� The decision is here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Memorandum-Opinion-Granting-Summary-Judgment-on-Liability

LUBBOCK, Texas 鈥� Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted an order implementing a settlement between the federal government, Texas, and four other states. The court order vacates provisions referencing the longstanding right to community integration for people with disabilities in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally funded programs. The federal government鈥檚 Section 504 regulations have included integration provisions since 1977. The court鈥檚 order in Texas v. Kennedy accepting the parties鈥� agreement breaks with decades of caselaw recognizing and upholding the right of people with disabilities to live, learn, and work in their communities. We strongly and unequivocally condemn the federal government's abandonment of its duty to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities. The court鈥檚 order does not impact other portions of the 2024 HHS Section 504 Rule or any other agency鈥檚 disability rights regulations. Nor does it change the statutory requirements in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Longstanding legal precedent across the country makes clear that federal law requires state and local governments to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate and prohibit the unnecessary institutionalization and segregation of people with disabilities. We will not go back. This statement was created by The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Justice in Aging, the National Health Law Program, and 桃子视频, with contributions by Alison Barkoff, Hirsh Health Law and Policy Associate Professor, George Washington University.