The following article was submitted by Brody and Associates, LLC. It is posted here with permission. 

The Connecticut legislature passed broad artificial intelligence legislation May 11, 2026 that includes a new framework governing the use of AI in employment-related decisions.

The bill, known as SB 5, is awaiting Gov. Ned Lamont’s signature, which is expected shortly.

Once enacted, Connecticut will join a growing list of jurisdictions that are imposing transparency and accountability requirements on employers that use AI tools in recruiting, hiring, promotion, discipline, scheduling, and termination decisions.

The statute regulates what it calls automated employment-related decision technology.

In general, AEDT refers to technology that processes personal data and generates an output that is a substantial factor in an employment decision.

The definition is broad enough to potentially cover resume-screening software, applicant ranking systems, video-interview analytics, skills assessments, productivity tools, and certain workforce management platforms when those tools materially influence personnel decisions.

What Does the Law Require?

The purpose of the law is to reduce the risk that algorithmic systems will continue or worsen historic discrimination while also giving applicants and employees more visibility into how these systems are used.

One of the most important features of the new law is its notice requirement.

Beginning Oct. 1, 2027, employers that deploy AEDT intended to interact with applicants or employees must disclose, in plain language, that the individual is interacting with such technology unless it would be obvious to a reasonable person.

When the tool’s output will be used as a substantial factor in making an employment-related decision, the employer must also provide a written notice before the decision is made.

Notice must identify the purpose of the tool, the categories and sources of personal data being analyzed, how data will be assessed, and contact information for the employer.

If such employment-related decision is “adverse,” employers must provide a high-level statement disclosing the principal reasons for the decision, including “the degree to which, and manner in which” an AEDP output contributed to the decision, the type of data used, and the right to examine or correct such data.

The law does include protection for proprietary or trade secret information, but employers should not assume that vendor confidentiality excuses them from compliance.

If an employer withholds certain information regarding the AEDP based on a third party’s confidentiality claim, the employer must nevertheless disclose that the information is being withheld and identify the legal basis for the withholding.

As a practical matter, this means employers that rely on outside vendors for screening, testing, or candidate evaluation should begin reviewing vendor contracts now to ensure they can obtain the information needed to satisfy Connecticut’s notice obligations.

Anti-Discrimination and Related Obligations

The law also makes clear employers cannot avoid liability by blaming an algorithm.

Connecticut’s anti-discrimination framework will expressly provide the use of AI or automated systems is not a defense to a discrimination claim.

In other words, if an AEDT disproportionately screens out candidates or influences decisions in a way that has an unlawful discriminatory effect, the employer may still be responsible even if the challenged output came from a third-party platform.

This provision reinforces a principle regulators have increasingly emphasized nationwide: employers remain accountable for employment decisions, whether those decisions are made by people, software, or a combination of both.

What Employers Should Do Now

For employers, the immediate takeaway is AI governance can no longer be treated as an IT issue.

Human resources, legal, compliance, and procurement teams should collaborate to identify all tools used in recruiting or personnel management, assess whether those tools materially affect employment decisions, and determine what disclosures this new law may require.

Employers should also assess whether internal policies, vendor agreements, and recordkeeping practices are sufficient to support compliance.

Even companies that already use AI responsibly may need to formalize review procedures, conduct bias testing, and create documentation explaining how automated outputs are considered by human decision-makers.

Connecticut’s new law reflects a broader regulatory trend: employers may continue using AI, but they must do so transparently, carefully, and with meaningful human accountability.

About the authors: Robert Brody is managing partner at Brody and Associates, LLC, which he founded in 1997. Matthew Chiota is a law clerk at Brody and Associates, awaiting admission to the Connecticut and New York Bar associations. Contact them at [email protected] or 203.454.0560.

Three more women have signed onto a federal lawsuit against the Maine Department of Corrections for allowing transgender prisoners to be housed in facilities that align with their gender identity.

First brought by Katie Mountain in April, the lawsuit now includes Jennifer Albert, Michaela Sargent and Danielle Foster, who say they live in fear at the Maine Correctional Center in Windham because of the department’s policy.

According to the lawsuit, the women have been sexually assaulted, threatened and repeatedly harassed by several transgender prisoners, including Andrea Balcer, who Mountain says caused “extreme physical and psychological distress.”

Balcer is serving a 40-year sentence for the murder of both parents in 2017.

Mountain, who was housed with Balcer when she began serving a 10-month sentence in January, alleges that while bunking together, Balcer subjected her to “graphic sexual stories, trapped her in a bathroom, pushed her against the wall, forcibly kissed her, and made repeated threats of rape and impregnation.”

Sargent describes waking up to Balcer stroking her hair and saying, “if you don’t wake up it’s because I smothered you with a pillow.” She also alleges that Balcer once grabbed her shirt and demanded, “show me your boobs.”

Attorney Cynthia Dill, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a press release that when the women reported the abuse or refused to affirm Balcer’s gender identity, they were met with retaliation by being placed in segregation, being denied hygiene supplies and medication and losing eligibility for early release.

In their lawsuit, the women argue that the policy mandates gender affirmation with “deliberate indifference to the safety, privacy and civil rights of women incarcerated in the State of Maine.” They say “gender identity” first made its way into Maine laws that govern corrections in 2021.

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the gender identity law and related state correctional policies along with damages.

Jill O’Brien, a spokesperson for the Maine Department of Corrections, said in a statement that the department takes residents’ safety concerns very seriously.

“Anytime a resident makes a report of physical or sexual violence or harassment to staff, the Department investigates,” O’Brien said. “If the conduct that occurred rises to the level of a crime, it is referred to the District Attorney for prosecution. If it violates the Department’s disciplinary policy, the residents involved are disciplined.”

O’Brien added that information about specific residents is confidential and information about specific residents is confidential.

This story appears through a media partnership with Maine Public.