06/11/2026
Last month, a client sent me their AI governance documents for review.
They were proud of what they had built—and they should have been. Most companies still have no AI governance documentation at all.
But when I reviewed it through an employment law lens, I found three gaps that could create serious liability if a discrimination claim ever landed on their desk:
1️⃣ No record of which AI tools are involved in employment decisions.
The company had approved AI tools, but there was no documentation identifying where AI was being used in hiring, performance management, promotions, or terminations.
2️⃣ No employee notice process.
If AI is influencing employment decisions, employees increasingly expect transparency—and some laws already require it. A governance policy that says nothing about employee notification leaves a significant compliance gap.
3️⃣ No bias audit schedule.
The documents discussed responsible AI use but contained no process for testing systems for adverse impact or documenting those reviews over time.
Here's the mistake I see repeatedly:
Companies treat AI governance as a technology policy.
Regulators, plaintiffs' attorneys, and courts may view it as an employment risk issue.
Those are not the same thing.
Having an AI policy does not automatically mean you have legal protection. The documents that govern tool usage are often very different from the documentation needed to defend an employment decision.
If you have AI governance documents in place and want a second set of eyes on them, let's talk.
