Illinois HB 3773: the Human Rights Act's AI employment rules

Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773), effective January 1, 2026, amended the Illinois Human Rights Act to add two employment duties around artificial intelligence: it is a civil rights violation to use AI that has the effect of discriminating against employees on a protected basis or to use a zip code as a proxy for a protected class, and it is a separate violation to fail to give required notice that AI is being used. The Department of Human Rights published proposed rules on notice in May 2026 and withdrew them weeks later, so the notice duty is in effect with no final guidance on its mechanics.

The two duties, side by side

The full text is in Public Act 103-0804, approved August 9, 2024. The Video Interview Act, a separate and older statute, is covered in the Illinois AI Video Interview Act; this page does not repeat that ground and focuses on the broader Human Rights Act amendment.

How the amendment defines artificial intelligence

The Act defines artificial intelligence as "a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments," and expressly includes generative AI (775 ILCS 5/2-101). That definition is broad enough to reach a resume screener, an interview-scoring model, or a chatbot that recommends candidates, and it does not turn on whether the tool is marketed as "AI." A tool's function, not its label, decides whether this amendment applies to it.

Who is covered: nearly every Illinois employer

The Human Rights Act's employer definition has not required a large workforce since Public Act 101-0430 took effect July 1, 2020: it covers any person employing one or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks in the year of, or preceding, the alleged violation. HB 3773 did not raise that threshold back up. A five-person recruiting firm or a single-location employer is covered by the AI provisions the same as a large corporation, which is a meaningfully wider reach than laws like Colorado's, which apply only to larger deployers, or NYC's Local Law 144, which is not tied to employer size but is limited to the city.

"Employees," applicants, and an open drafting question

Section 2-102(L)(2)'s notice duty is written in terms of failing to provide notice "to an employee." The list of covered purposes in the same subsection includes recruitment and hiring, activities that by definition happen before someone is an employee. The statute does not explain how an employer gives an "employee" notice about an AI tool used to decide whether to hire them in the first place, or whether "employee" should be read to include applicants for this purpose. This is exactly the kind of gap the withdrawn May 2026 proposed rules were expected to close. Pending clarification, the more protective reading, treating applicants the same as employees for notice purposes, is the lower-risk position, but it is a choice you are making in the absence of a rule, not a requirement the text spells out.

The discriminatory-effect standard, and the zip code provision

Unlike Texas's TRAIGA, which reaches only AI developed or deployed with intent to discriminate, Illinois's text targets AI use that "has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes." That effects-based framing is closer to Title VII's disparate-impact concept than to an intent standard, though the amendment does not import the four-fifths rule or any other specific statistical test; it leaves the standard for what "has the effect of" means to be worked out under ordinary Human Rights Act case law and any future IDHR guidance. See Title VII disparate impact and AI hiring tools for how a comparable effects-based test is applied elsewhere.

The zip code provision is narrower and more concrete: using zip code as a proxy for a protected class in the listed employment decisions is itself a violation. Zip code correlates with race and national origin in many parts of Illinois closely enough that recruiting or scoring tools built around geographic targeting, commute-time filters, or location-based lead scoring are worth auditing specifically for this, separately from a general bias review of the tool.

The rulemaking timeline

The statutory obligations did not pause when the proposed rules were withdrawn. An employer using AI in a covered employment decision is still subject to section 2-102(L) today; what is missing is only the detailed roadmap for what a compliant notice looks like.

Filing a charge, and what is at stake

A charge alleging a violation of section 2-102(L) goes to the Illinois Department of Human Rights the same way any other Human Rights Act charge does. Illinois extended the filing deadline for most charges from 300 days to two years, effective for charges filed on or after January 1, 2025; housing charges are not affected by that change. IDHR is required to conclude its investigation and make a finding within 365 days of the charge being filed, absent limited exceptions. If IDHR or, after a hearing, the Human Rights Commission finds a violation, remedies under 775 ILCS 5/8A-104 can include a cease-and-desist order, actual damages, hiring, reinstatement or back pay, and a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest, on top of attorney fees. The amendment does not create a separate, AI-specific penalty schedule; a finding under section 2-102(L) draws on the Act's general remedy structure.

What to do while the rules are on hold

• Inventory every tool used in recruitment, screening, interview scoring, promotion or discipline decisions for Illinois employees, and confirm which meet the statute's AI definition.
• Draft a plain-language notice now, covering what the tool is, what it is used for, and how it is used in the decision, so you are not starting from nothing once rules land.
• Decide, and document your reasoning, on whether you will give that notice to applicants as well as employees, given the statute's gap on this point.
• Run a proxy check on any tool's use of zip code, commute distance, or other location data as a scoring or filtering input.
• Ask every AI hiring vendor for whatever adverse-impact testing they have done, and keep it on file, since it is the practical evidence you would want in hand if a charge is filed under the effects-based standard.
• Watch the Illinois Register and 56 Ill. Adm. Code 2520 for the next rulemaking attempt, and update your notice process once it lands.

Common mistakes