AI hiring compliance at Eximius
Automated hiring is regulated, not prohibited. Laws such as New York City Local Law 144, the EU AI Act, and EEOC guidance require transparency, bias auditing, and human oversight. Eximius is built to support those obligations with explainable scoring, recorded and reviewable decisions, and humans in the loop for the decision.
This page describes our approach. See also our Ethical AI policy.
Explainable scoring
Candidates are scored against the same role-specific criteria, and each score is broken into defined dimensions with a stated rationale where one is generated, rather than a single opaque number. That makes shortlists something a hiring manager can interrogate and a compliance team can defend.
Bias auditing and fairness
Consistent criteria applied to every candidate, explainable rationales, documented decisions, and human oversight are the core safeguards against biased outcomes. Where a jurisdiction requires an independent bias audit, Eximius supports it with the documentation an auditor needs.
Human oversight
Eximius applies automated pre-filtering (scoring candidates against a role’s defined criteria and flagging those outside it) under human oversight. Recruiters review candidates and make the hiring decision; the system augments recruiter judgment, it does not replace it.
Candidate transparency
Individuals interacting with Eximius’s AI-enabled screening are made aware they are engaging with AI, consistent with our published AI policy.
Recorded, reviewable decisions
Each stage, from parsing through the scorecard, records its inputs and outputs, so decisions can be reconstructed and reviewed.
Bias-audit summary
Fairness is built into how Eximius screens candidates today. Every applicant is evaluated against the same role-specific criteria, each score carries an explainable rationale, decisions are documented and reviewable, and a person makes every hiring decision. Those safeguards are how we actively reduce biased outcomes.
We are committed to backing that up with independent validation. As part of that commitment we are moving toward an independent bias audit, and we will publish the full summary right here: the auditor, the audit date, the scope tested, and the impact ratios by category, aligned with NYC Local Law 144 and the EU AI Act. Transparency matters to us, so when the audit is complete, you will see the results in full.
Frequently asked questions
Is AI candidate screening legal?
Yes, when deployed responsibly. Laws such as New York City Local Law 144, the EU AI Act, and EEOC guidance regulate automated hiring tools. They require transparency, bias auditing, and human oversight rather than prohibiting AI. Eximius is built to support these obligations with explainable scoring and recorded, reviewable decisions.
Does Eximius comply with NYC Local Law 144?
Local Law 144 requires employers using an automated employment decision tool to complete an independent bias audit, publish a summary, and notify candidates. Eximius provides the explainable, documented decisioning that supports these requirements, and we are committed to independent validation: we are moving toward an independent bias audit and will publish the full summary once it is complete.
How does Eximius reduce bias in screening?
Every candidate is evaluated against the same role-specific criteria, each score is broken into defined dimensions with an explainable rationale where one is generated rather than a single opaque number, decisions are recorded and reviewable, and humans stay in the loop for the hiring decision. Consistent criteria plus explainability plus oversight is the core of defensible, fairer screening.
Are candidates told they are interacting with AI?
Yes. Eximius supports transparency so that individuals interacting with AI-enabled screening are aware they are engaging with AI, consistent with its published AI policy.