Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping how work is performed, evaluated, and managed across the United States. In Michigan, where industries such as automotive manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, and technology play a central economic role, AI has moved from theoretical innovation to a practical business tool. While the Intersection of AI and Employment Law in Michigan Workplaces , The employers increasingly rely on AI-driven systems to screen job applicants, monitor employee performance, and automate routine or hazardous tasks. While these technologies promise efficiency, cost savings, and data-driven decision-making, they also raise significant legal and ethical questions. The intersection of AI and employment law in Michigan workplaces highlights the tension between technological advancement and the preservation of employee rights, as well as the expanding obligations placed on employers under existing legal frameworks. ¹
The use of AI in hiring has become one of the most visible and impactful applications of technology in employment decision-making. Employers use AI-powered tools to sort resumes, rank applicants, analyze video interviews, and predict candidate success based on large datasets. These systems are often marketed as neutral and objective, offering a way to reduce human bias and improve consistency in hiring. In practice, however, AI tools are only as fair as the data and assumptions that shape them.
Many AI hiring systems rely on historical employment data, which may reflect decades of inequities in hiring and promotion practices. When those patterns are embedded into algorithms, the technology can perpetuate or even amplify discriminatory outcomes. For example, an algorithm trained on a workforce historically dominated by men may unconsciously penalize resumes associated with women, even if gender is not explicitly considered. Under federal employment law, particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such outcomes can expose employers to liability under a disparate impact theory of discrimination. ²
In Michigan, there is currently no statute that specifically regulates the use of AI in private sector hiring. Employers therefore remain subject to federal anti-discrimination laws and Michigan’s general employment law principles. The absence of AI-specific legislation does not insulate employers from risk; rather, it places greater responsibility on organizations to ensure that their AI tools comply with existing legal standards. ³ Employers cannot avoid liability by claiming that a third-party vendor supplied the AI system or that the technology made the decision independently.
Discrimination risks associated with AI hiring tools are not limited to race or gender. AI systems may also disadvantage older workers, individuals with disabilities, or applicants from certain socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, algorithms that prioritize uninterrupted work histories may unfairly penalize candidates who took medical leave or caregiving breaks. Similarly, automated video interview tools may disadvantage individuals with speech impediments, neurodivergent conditions, or disabilities affecting facial expressions.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has made clear that employers remain legally responsible for employment decisions made with the assistance of AI. Federal guidance emphasizes that the use of automated systems does not relieve employers of their obligation to provide reasonable accommodations or to ensure that employment practices do not disproportionately exclude protected groups. ¹ If an AI tool screens out qualified individuals at a higher rate than others, employers may be required to demonstrate that the tool is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
For Michigan employers, this means that AI tools must be actively monitored, validated, and periodically reviewed. Blind reliance on algorithmic outputs can expose organizations to enforcement actions, civil litigation, and reputational harm. Employers should understand how their AI systems function, what criteria they prioritize, and whether those criteria correlate with protected characteristics.
As AI systems grow more complex, transparency has emerged as a central concern in employment law. Many AI tools operate as “black boxes,” producing decisions without meaningful explanations that can be understood by candidates or employees. This lack of transparency can undermine trust and make it difficult for individuals to challenge adverse employment actions.
Several states outside Michigan have begun to address this issue by requiring employers to notify applicants and employees when AI or automated decision-making tools are used in hiring or evaluation processes. These laws often require disclosure of the types of data collected, the purpose of the technology, and the individual’s right to request human review. ⁴ Although Michigan has not enacted similar legislation, these developments reflect a broader national trend toward transparency and accountability in AI-assisted employment decisions.
Even in the absence of statutory requirements, Michigan employers’ benefit from proactively informing candidates and employees about AI use. Clear communication reduces confusion, demonstrates good faith, and may mitigate legal risk if a decision is later challenged. Transparency also aligns with emerging best practices that emphasize procedural fairness in technologically mediated workplaces.
Beyond hiring, AI has become a powerful tool for monitoring employee activity and performance. Employers use AI-driven surveillance systems to track keystrokes, analyze productivity metrics, monitor communications, and assess employee engagement. In some workplaces, AI is used to monitor compliance with safety protocols or to detect potential misconduct.
While Michigan does not have a comprehensive employee data privacy statute comparable to those in other states, employers must still navigate privacy concerns under federal law and common law principles. Employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain contexts, particularly when monitoring extends beyond work-related activities or occurs without adequate notice. Excessive or covert surveillance can damage morale and invite legal challenges.
Additionally, AI monitoring tools may create unintended discriminatory effects. Facial recognition and emotion-detection technologies, for example, have been shown to perform less accurately on certain racial groups or individuals with disabilities. If monitoring data is used to discipline, evaluate, or terminate employees, inaccuracies or biases in technology can translate into unlawful employment actions. ⁵ Michigan employers must therefore evaluate not only whether monitoring is lawful, but whether it is fair, proportionate, and necessary for legitimate business purposes.
AI-driven automation is transforming the structure of work itself. In Michigan, automation has long played a role in manufacturing, but AI now extends automation into areas such as logistics, customer service, and professional services. While automation can improve efficiency and safety, it also raises concerns about job displacement and economic security for workers.
There is currently no Michigan law that prohibits employers from implementing automation that reduces or eliminates jobs. However, legal obligations may arise under federal statutes such as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act if automation leads to mass layoffs. In unionized workplaces, employers may also be required to bargain over the effects of automation on employees.
Beyond legal compliance, automation raises ethical and policy questions about workforce transition and retraining. Employers that invest in reskilling programs and communicate openly about technological changes are better positioned to maintain workforce stability and reduce conflict. As AI continues to reshape labor markets, lawmakers may revisit whether additional protections or obligations are necessary to address displacement caused by automation.
A recurring theme in discussions of AI and employment law is the importance of maintaining human oversight. Fully automated decision-making systems, particularly in high-stakes employment contexts, carry significant risks. Errors, bias, and contextual misunderstandings can all occur when decisions are left entirely to algorithms.
Legal scholars and regulators increasingly emphasize the “human-in-the-loop” model, which requires meaningful human review of AI-generated decisions. This approach reinforces accountability and ensures that employment decisions consider individual circumstances that AI may overlook. Emerging legal standards suggest that employers should not rely exclusively on automated outputs when making decisions about hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination. ⁵
For Michigan employers, incorporating human oversight into AI workflows is both a legal safeguard and a best practice. Human review helps identify anomalies, correct errors, and ensure that decisions align with organizational values and legal obligations.
The integration of artificial intelligence into Michigan workplaces represents both an opportunity and a challenge. AI offers powerful tools for improving efficiency, consistency, and decision-making, but it also tests the boundaries of existing employment law. While Michigan has not yet enacted AI-specific employment legislation, federal anti-discrimination laws, privacy principles, and labor regulations continue to govern how AI may be used.
Employers that proactively address the legal and ethical implications of AI by auditing systems for bias, maintaining transparency, ensuring human oversight, and respecting employee privacy can harness the benefits of innovation while minimizing risk. As technology evolves, so too will the legal landscape. The future of AI in Michigan workplaces will depend on how effectively employers balance technological advancement with fairness, accountability, and respect for employee rights.
Contact Tishkoff
Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).
Footnotes
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Employment Discrimination and Artificial Intelligence for Workers (Apr. 29, 2024). https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/20240429_What%20is%20the%20EEOCs%20role%20in%20AI.pdf
- American Bar Association, Employment Law Red Flags in the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Hiring, Business Law Today (Oct. 2020). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2020-october/employment-law-red-flags/
- J. J. Keller Compliance Network, AI Workplace Protections – Michigan. https://jjkellercompliancenetwork.com/regsense/ai-workplace-protections-state-comparison
- Ethena, AI in Hiring: Four Employment Laws Every HR Team Should Know. https://www.goethena.com/post/4-ai-hr-employment-laws/
- Florentino & Grimshaw LLC, Legal Developments Impacting Employers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence and Electronic Monitoring. https://www.fglawllc.com/client-alerts/legal-developments-impacting-employers-use-of-artificial-intelligence-and-electronic-monitoring