Recommended Free Tools
Audit the system by what it does—not by whether its vendor calls it “AI” or a person makes the final click. California’s employment regulations can reach tools that help screen, rank, assess or recruit applicants, as well as systems used for workforce decisions. Map the tools and decision-makers, test outcomes for discrimination, check accessibility and accommodation practices, and preserve covered records. The details of which laws apply depend on the employer, system and data.
Which systems should be in the audit?
California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD) says the employment regulations covering automated-decision systems took effect October 1, 2025. The Civil Rights Council’s final regulations were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on June 27, 2025. Under the regulations, an automated-decision system is a computational process that makes or facilitates a human decision about an employment benefit. It may use AI, machine learning, algorithms, statistics or other data-processing techniques.
Follow the tool’s function and effect, not its product label. A system can be relevant even when a human formally makes the final decision. The scope can include tools that:
- Target or deliver job advertisements and recruiting materials.
- Parse résumés, apply keyword or pattern filters, screen applicants, or recommend who advances.
- Administer computerized tests, assessments or puzzle games.
- Analyze facial expressions, word choice, voice or behavior in an online interview.
- Analyze third-party applicant or employee data.
- Support workforce decisions such as promotion, evaluation or other employment benefits.
General-purpose technical tools are excluded when they do not make an employment-benefit decision. A tool’s name or vendor description alone does not settle whether it falls within the rules.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
Build an audit around the real decision process
For each system, trace the path from data collection to employment consequence. Include the employer’s decision-makers and vendors, and consider people acting directly or indirectly as the employer’s agents in recruitment, screening and hiring. A human reviewer’s presence does not, by itself, answer whether the process has discriminatory effects.
- Inventory tools and uses. Include applicant sourcing and ad delivery, applicant-tracking filters, résumé parsers, assessments, video or voice analysis, ranking and recommendation tools, employee evaluation or promotion systems, and third-party data products. Record the system name, version, vendor, purpose, California use and affected roles.
- Map responsibility and decision flow. Identify the employer owner, vendor, any agent, human reviewer, override authority and downstream decision. Record whether the system assists or effectively determines who advances, is hired, promoted, disciplined or terminated.
- Check the criteria against the job. Tie inputs and scoring criteria to documented job requirements. Investigate proxies and criteria unrelated to the job’s essential duties that could screen out protected groups.
- Analyze results at each stage. Compare selection and adverse-action rates across legally relevant protected groups and decision stages. Keep context about the job, applicant pool and criteria, investigate disparities, document data limitations, and assess any asserted job-related business necessity or other applicable defense.
- Test access and accommodations. Try the application and assessment with assistive technology and alternative formats. Verify applicants can request reasonable accommodations, and assess whether the tool measures the claimed job skill or instead measures disability-related characteristics. Document individualized review and any alternative method that could meet the employer’s goal with less discriminatory impact.
- Review recruiting, questions and inferences. Examine ad targeting and delivery for discriminatory patterns or discouragement. Review application questions and interview analysis, including inferences drawn from voice, face, behavior or third-party information.
- Preserve evidence and address risks. Maintain the records that apply to the organization, document findings and corrective actions, and escalate material risks to counsel and the responsible employment decision-maker.
- Check parallel requirements. Determine separately whether California privacy rules apply and, for a state agency, whether the public-sector inventory process applies. Verify the enacted text of SB 947 before relying on an interpretation of its details or effective date.
Test for discrimination, not just technical performance
California’s regulations address selection policies or practices that have adverse impact on protected groups unless an applicable defense applies. CRD describes adverse impact as including substantial disparities in selection rates and recognizes that evidence may extend beyond statistics. Compare outcomes at relevant stages and retain enough context to explain the criteria, job and applicant pool. The sources cited here do not establish a single statistical test, threshold or AI-specific safe harbor for every employer or system.
Human review is not a substitute for examining results. A person may rely heavily on a score or recommendation, while a tool can influence who is considered at all. For each decision point, record what the system supplied, what the reviewer considered, whether the reviewer could override it and what action followed.
CRD illustrates the risk with a hiring tool that reproduces patterns from a male-dominated workforce and an advertising system that reinforces gender or racial stereotypes. These are examples of possible risks, not findings about a particular vendor or estimates of how often such outcomes occur.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Rank #3
Make disability access and medical inquiries a separate audit track
CRD warns that ability tests, dexterity and reaction-time measures, and analysis of tone, facial expression or behavior may disadvantage people with disabilities or other protected characteristics. An assessment should measure a job-related skill rather than an unrelated way of speaking, moving or responding.
Check both the applicant experience and the information the system derives from it. CRD says assessments—including tests, questions and puzzle games—that elicit disability information may constitute unlawful medical inquiries. The regulations address pre-offer medical or psychological inquiries, including those administered through automated systems. Review not only the questions but also inferences drawn from a response, voice, face or behavior. A system’s use does not replace an individualized assessment.
- Can applicants use assistive technology and accessible formats?
- Is there a clear, usable way to request an accommodation?
- Can the employer offer an alternative assessment that serves the same goal with less discriminatory impact?
- Do questions or behavioral analyses elicit or infer disability-related information?
- Are accommodation requests and resulting decisions documented with appropriate access controls?
Keep an audit trail and confirm the retention period
CRD says covered employers and entities must retain employment records, including automated-decision data, for at least four years. The regulations specify four-year preservation for certain records and applicant-identification information. Confirm with counsel which records and triggering dates apply to the organization’s circumstances.
A useful audit file can include the system name and version, configuration, vendor documentation, data sources, job criteria, outputs, human actions and overrides, selection-rate analyses, accommodation handling, complaints, explanations and corrective actions. Limit access to sensitive information while preserving what is needed to investigate decisions and demonstrate how the process worked.
Best Value
Check privacy rules and public-agency duties separately
The California Privacy Protection Agency’s laws page lists CCPA regulations effective January 1, 2026 and an adopted package addressing automated decisionmaking technology, risk assessments and cybersecurity audits. That status does not mean every employer or employment system is covered. Assess the organization’s status, information collected, processing and relevant exceptions, then review the operative rules for the facts at hand.
State agencies have a distinct high-risk automated-decision-system inventory and reporting process described by the California Department of Technology. Its examples include a generative AI system that ranks résumés and influences whether a public employee advances or is rejected. This is not a universal filing requirement for private employers.
What to verify about SB 947
In a September 30, 2026 announcement, the Governor described SB 947 as an employment automated-decision-systems measure and said it bars employers from relying only on AI for disciplinary or termination decisions. That announcement is not enough to establish the statute’s precise definitions, coverage, exceptions, remedies or effective date. Do not use those details as audit requirements until they are checked against the enacted, chaptered bill text.
Compare vendors using evidence, not labels
If you are choosing between systems, ask each vendor for evidence relevant to the actual jobs and workflow. These are audit dimensions, not a state-approved product rating:
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11- The system’s role in the decision and degree of automation.
- Documented job-related criteria and support for their validity.
- Selection outcomes and available disparity evidence.
- Accessibility, accommodation support and alternative assessment options.
- Data sources, potential proxies, retention and the ability to export decision records.
- Vendor transparency and cooperation with audits or investigations.
- Human review, override authority and any path to reconsider a decision.
- The ability to preserve records and investigate incidents.
Ask for information that lets the employer evaluate the full process, not merely a general assurance that the system is fair. The employer’s audit should be able to connect the system’s inputs and outputs to the job criteria, human actions and employment outcome.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
