Photo of Jonathan Slowik

Jonathan Slowik is a special counsel in the Labor Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Counseling Group.

In the nearly four years since Joe Biden was sworn in as President in 2021, groundbreaking advances in artificial intelligence (AI) became widely available that offer the potential to revolutionize employment-related decisions and processes for recruiting, hiring, promotions, and employee evaluation.  As the nation prepares for a second Trump Administration, and employers increasingly interested in adopting and using AI tools, one question on employers’ minds is what can they expect with respect to federal regulation of AI? 

In this episode of The Proskauer Brief we are joined by partner Guy Brenner, who leads Proskauer’s D.C. Labor & Employment practice and is co-head of the Counseling, Training & Pay Equity Group, and Jonathan Slowik, senior counsel, Labor & Employment, in the firm’s Los Angeles office. In part one of our insightful

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently published “Artificial Intelligence and Worker Well-Being: Principles and Best Practices for Developers and Employers,” which is intended to inform employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) when it comes to employment decisions.  The guidance—which does not have the force of law—enumerates eight guiding principles for the “responsible use”

On September 24, 2024, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced the publication of an AI & Inclusive Hiring Framework (the “Framework”).  As discussed below, the Framework sets forth ten “Focus Areas” for employers to consider when using AI recruiting and hiring tools to minimize the risk of algorithmic discrimination. 

The Framework was developed

On August 9, 2024, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed into law HB3773, a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to address employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI).  The amendment clarifies that it is a civil rights violation to use AI that has the effect of discriminating on the basis of protected classes under

For the past 40 years, federal administrative agencies have enjoyed broad latitude in interpreting statutes passed by Congress.  Known as “Chevron deference,” courts have routinely deferred to the agencies’ often politically motivated and even self-empowering interpretation of an otherwise ambiguous statute.  This has led to a significant delegation (indeed, some would say surrender) of