The Risks of Discrimination in AI-Based Decision Making in the Workplace

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more prevalent in various industries, including the workplace, it is essential to consider the potential risks associated with using this technology. One of the primary risks is discrimination, which can occur for a variety of reasons. In this article, we will explore the different factors that can contribute to discrimination in AI-based decision-making in the workplace, as well as some real-life examples that highlight these risks.

Potential Discrimination Risks in Using AI

There are several possible reasons why bias and unlawful discrimination can occur when using AI. One of these factors is the quality and quantity of data used in the development of algorithms. If the data used is biased or incomplete, it could lead to discriminatory outcomes. Additionally, the algorithms themselves might contain mathematical biases, such as over-reliance on certain factors or underestimation of others, which could lead to unfair treatment.

One noteworthy example of the potential dangers of using AI in hiring processes is the case of a CV screening tool that identified being named Jared and playing lacrosse in high school as the two most significant predictors of job performance. This erroneous approach illustrates how even unbiased data can be distilled into unusable, discriminatory outcomes.

Uber Drivers Claim Algorithmic Racism

In 2018, Uber drivers claimed that they were locked out of the ride-sharing app by an algorithm that was biased against non-white individuals. Despite Uber claiming that the algorithm was race-neutral, it was found to discriminate against those who did not have their face fully visible in the photo, with darker-skinned features receiving lower ratings.

Potential Discrimination Against Disadvantaged Employees

Another significant concern about AI-based decision-making in the workplace is that it can negatively affect disadvantaged employees. These employees may argue that algorithm-based decisions directly or indirectly harm them, leading to discrimination. Specific outcomes that disadvantage particular groups could be interpreted as discriminatory.

Employers Needing to Prove Non-Discrimination or Justified Indirect Discrimination

Suppose an employer uses AI in decision-making, and the outcome could be accused of indirect discrimination. In that case, it is imperative that the parties show that the decision was not discriminatory or that the indirect discriminatory impact of the algorithm is objectively justified. However, the employer might not understand how an algorithm works or have access to the source code, leading to a significant challenge in proving their case.

Difficulty in Understanding Algorithm Workings for Employers

Another issue for employers is that they might not fully understand how algorithms work, or they might not have access to the source code. Given that, it might be challenging for employers to prove that they have not discriminated or that any indirect impact of a decision algorithm is justified. This outcome further emphasizes the importance of algorithmic fairness, transparency, and collaboration, rather than purely maximizing algorithmic accuracy at all times.

Suggestion to Seek Indemnities from Third-Party Algorithm Developers

When using AI in the workplace, employers can potentially protect themselves by seeking indemnities from the companies that develop the algorithm. This way, employers can avoid the financial burden of defending themselves against possible discrimination allegations.

Uncertainty regarding court handling of algorithmic discrimination cases remains high, as AI and algorithms are still relatively new. Therefore, it is crucial for organizations to stay up-to-date with recent court rulings related to AI-based discrimination and have a plan in place for handling these types of cases in the future.

As the workplace’s use of AI continues to grow rapidly, it is only a matter of time before the courts are tested with cases involving AI-based discrimination. With the many possible factors that can contribute to discriminatory outcomes, it is crucial for employers to remain vigilant and take proactive measures to minimize the risk of such outcomes. As AI continues to evolve and transform every industry, it is up to us to ensure that fairness and equality remain fundamental principles in decision-making processes.

Explore more

Why Corporate Wellness Programs Fail to Fix Workplace Stress

The modern professional often finds that for every dollar spent on a meditation app by their employer, nearly one hundred and fifty dollars are drained from the global economy due to systemic burnout and disengagement. This economic disparity highlights a growing tension between the wellness industry, which has grown into a juggernaut worth sixty billion dollars, and the eight point

How to Fix the Workplace Communication and Feedback Crisis

The silent erosion of professional morale often begins not with a grand failure of strategy but with the subtle, persistent friction caused by poorly articulated managerial guidance. This disconnect between managerial intent and employee performance represents a significant hurdle for modern organizations, as traditional critique methods frequently lead to burnout rather than improvement. Addressing the central challenge of workplace communication

How Can You Close the Feedback Gap to Retain Top Talent?

When elite professionals choose to resign, the departure frequently stems from a prolonged absence of meaningful dialogue regarding their trajectory within the organization and the specific expectations surrounding their professional contributions. This silence creates a vacuum where uncertainty flourishes, eventually pushing high achievers toward the exit. Research indicates that nearly half of all employees who voluntarily leave their roles cite

Can AI Infrastructure Redefine Wealth Management?

The once-revolutionary promise of digital wealth management has hit a ceiling where simply layering more software atop crumbling legacy systems no longer yields a competitive edge for modern firms. This realization has sparked a fundamental shift in how the industry approaches technology. Instead of pursuing cosmetic updates, firms are now looking at the very bones of their operations to find

Family Office Models Reshape Korean Wealth Management

The skyline of Seoul no longer just represents industrial might but also signals a historic accumulation of private capital that is forcing the nation’s most prestigious financial institutions to rewrite their playbooks entirely. The traditional private banking model, once centered on the 1-billion-won investor, is undergoing a radical metamorphosis. As of 2026, a burgeoning class of ultra-wealthy households has redefined