AI hiring compliance in Australia and the US

Using AI in hiring is legal in Australia and the United States. Using it carelessly is not. This is a plain-English map of the obligations that sit with the employer, and how Zeli is built to meet them.

Australia

• Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles: collect only what the role needs, tell candidates what you collect and why, secure it, and let them access and correct it.
• Notifiable Data Breaches scheme: assess and notify eligible breaches. Zeli's audit trail and AWS Sydney hosting make the assessment tractable.
• Anti-discrimination law: decisions must be on merit. Structured scorecards and evidence-based scoring are your defence; human review is your backstop.

New York City Local Law 144

If you use an automated employment decision tool for roles in New York City, the obligations are yours, not the vendor's, however the contract allocates cost. You must commission an independent bias audit within the last year, publish a summary of it, give candidates at least ten business days' notice that the tool is in use, and offer an alternative process on request. Penalties run from roughly US$500 to US$1,500 per violation, per day.

The EEOC

Federal anti-discrimination law applies to AI-assisted decisions exactly as it applies to human ones. Adverse impact is measured on outcomes. Keep the data, run the analysis, and keep a human able to intervene.

How Zeli is built for this

• A plain-English candidate notice on every process, and a published AI transparency page.
• Structured scorecards and evidence-quoted scoring, so decisions are explainable.
• A complete audit trail on every screen, interview and ranking, exportable for audits.
• Human review of every shortlist, and a human-review request one click away for candidates.
• Data residency you choose: AWS Sydney by default, US regions for US roles on Enterprise.