Short answer. Local Law 144 may apply when an employer or employment agency uses an automated employment decision tool (AEDT) in a covered NYC hiring or promotion workflow. The answer depends on what the tool does, how much its output influences the decision, where the relevant use occurs and whether the person is being screened as a candidate or employee for promotion.
Start with these scope questions
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Are you an employer or employment agency? | LL144 places obligations on employers and employment agencies that use covered AEDTs. |
| Is the relevant job, office or agency use connected to NYC? | DCWP guidance explains when use is considered “in the city,” including certain NYC-office and remote-role situations. |
| Does the tool use machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or AI? | This is part of the AEDT definition, but technology alone is not enough. |
| Does it produce a score, classification, ranking, recommendation or other simplified output? | The output must be used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making. |
| How much weight does the output receive? | The rules focus on whether the output is the sole criterion, outweighs other criteria, or can overrule conclusions from other factors. |
| Does the tool screen for hiring or promotion? | LL144 concerns screening candidates for employment or employees for promotion. |
| Has the person applied for a specific position? | DCWP distinguishes candidates for a specific position from some sourcing/outreach activity before application. |
Human review does not automatically remove LL144
A human recruiter in the workflow does not by itself decide scope. The key question is how the automated output is actually used. Under 6 RCNY §5-300, an output can “substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making” when it is the sole criterion, is weighted more heavily than any other criterion, or is used to overrule conclusions derived from other factors.
Remote jobs can still require analysis
DCWP's FAQ explains that covered use can include a job located at least partly in a NYC office and a fully remote job associated with a NYC office. Employment-agency location can also matter. Candidate residence should not be substituted for this territorial-use analysis.
Sourcing is not the same as screening an applicant
DCWP's FAQ distinguishes certain resume-bank searching, outreach and invitations to apply from screening a person who has applied for a specific position. The actual workflow should be documented before reaching a scope conclusion.
Who is responsible?
A vendor may coordinate or commission a bias audit of its tool, but DCWP states that the employer or employment agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring the applicable LL144 requirements are satisfied before covered use.
Preliminary result framework
Likely in scope
The answers indicate the principal AEDT and NYC-use elements may be present.
Scope review required
How the output is weighted, how the workflow operates or the NYC nexus requires closer review.
Likely outside scope
One or more required elements appear absent based on the information available.
This framework is preliminary regulatory scoping information, not a legal determination.
Primary sources
Last legally reviewed: September 17, 2026.