Does a vendor's validation report satisfy the employer's testing duty?

No. The EEOC says the employer remains responsible for ensuring its selection tests are valid under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Ask how the evidence relates to the actual job and screening decision. A report from another employer or role can inform questions, but it is not proof that a proposed cutoff predicts the work in your own vacancies.[1]

Does every resume tool fall under New York City's AEDT rule?

No. The city's FAQ describes an AEDT as a computer-based tool using machine learning, statistical modelling, data analytics or AI to help an employer or employment agency make employment decisions, while substantially assisting or replacing discretion. The rule concerns candidate assessment for hiring or promotion when the tool is used in the city. It gives no employee-count threshold.[4]

How recent must a New York City AEDT bias audit be?

The city says a covered tool must have had a bias audit within one year of its use. It also requires publicly available information about the audit and candidate or employee notices. Check the audit date against the planned use date, and inspect the public summary rather than accepting a vendor's statement that an audit once occurred.[2]

Can an applicant ask for a different screening route?

Yes. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation during hiring unless it would impose undue hardship. Give applicants a workable way to request an accessible alternative and decide who will respond before the tool is launched. A candidate should not have to disclose disability to a scoring model merely to find an accommodation contact.[3]

What should a small employer test for a kitchen vacancy?

Define the real tasks first, then ask what the screening score measures and whether evidence validates its use for that job. The EEOC says the employer remains responsible for test validity. For a kitchen role, a vendor's generic office-role result is not a substitute for evidence connected to the skills the kitchen job actually requires.[1]

What changes if the vendor updates its screening model?

Treat the update as a fresh change to the selection procedure. Ask which scoring rules, inputs and outcomes changed, and reassess the job-related evidence, accessibility path and any applicable city audit timing. The employer remains responsible for test validity; a prior procurement approval cannot establish that a materially changed tool still supports the same hiring decision.[1][2][3]

Resume Screening Software: Checks Before You Buy in 2026

Quick Answer: Before buying resume screening software in October 2026, verify whether it substantially assists hiring decisions for a New York City job, validate each job test and offer accommodations. Covered use requires a bias audit within one year, public results and candidate notices. Assign a human owner to review exclusions and changes.¹^,2^,3^,4

Summary in a mind map

Resume Screening Software: Checks Before You Buy in 2026
│
├─ Map the decision
│   ├─ Record scores, cutoffs and exclusions
│   └─ Name the human reviewer
│
├─ Check city scope
│   ├─ Assess actual AEDT use
│   └─ Obtain audit, public results and notices
│
├─ Validate the test
│   ├─ Match evidence to each actual job
│   └─ Examine disproportionate exclusions
│
└─ Protect the applicant
    ├─ Offer an accommodation route
    └─ Reassess after a vendor model change

Define the screening decision

The procurement review starts with the actual hiring task. A 35-person catering company might screen applicants for kitchen and operations vacancies. One proposed product could sort resumes for a human reviewer; another could reject candidates below a score. Those uses create different risks. The review records each input, score, cutoff and human action. A vendor’s “AI” label does not settle the use.¹^,2

The company maps the journey from application to invitation. Which applicants never reach a person? Which recommendations can a recruiter override? Does the tool substantially assist the decision, or merely store applications? The city describes duties for covered automated employment decision tools. The EEOC examines the selection test or procedure an employer uses. A product label cannot answer either question.¹^,2

Workflow point	Evidence to request	Hiring decision to document
Resume intake	Fields collected and parsed	Whether incomplete parsing excludes a candidate
Scoring	Features, weight and cutoff description	Whether a score determines interview access
Human review	Override and appeal route	Who can reverse a mistaken exclusion
Model update	Change notice and version record	Whether earlier validation still fits

This inventory guides legal review, vendor questions and staff training. Without it, the team may obtain an audit for a product name while the real use of the product has changed.¹^,2

Check New York City AEDT scope

New York City's Local Law 144 page names pre-use conditions for covered tools. They concern an audit, public information and notices. The key word for the buyer is use. The catering firm must assess its workflow. The vendor's marketing location alone does not decide coverage. The scope record identifies candidate or job location and the tool's influence.²

The city's FAQ supplies the classification test. An AEDT is a computer-based tool using machine learning, statistical modelling, data analytics or AI; it must help an employer or employment agency make employment decisions and substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making. Screening an applicant for a specific vacancy counts as an employment decision. Scanning a resume bank to invite applications does not meet that hiring or promotion use. A product's name and the size of the employer do not answer this test; the FAQ states no employee-count threshold.⁴

The rule applies to use “in the city” when the job has a New York City office location at least part time, or is fully remote but associated with a New York City office. It also covers an employment agency located in the city; for an agency outside the city, the job-location conditions apply. The catering company should therefore record the kitchen or operations job location, whether applicants have applied for a specific position, and how the score affects assessment. A New York City resident candidate receives notice when the rule applies.⁴

New York City coverage is only one branch. A company outside that city's specific use may still need to justify an employment test under federal discrimination law and provide ADA accommodations. The city audit is not a substitute for those duties.¹^,3

Obtain audit and notice evidence

For a covered AEDT, the city's page names three pre-use conditions: a bias audit within one year of use, publicly available audit information and notices to employees or job candidates. The vendor request asks for audit date, scope and public results. The employer compares the audit date with first use. A private report does not satisfy the cited public-information condition.²

City condition	Evidence in the purchase file	Unresolved question
Audit within one year	Dated report for the relevant tool	Does it cover the version being bought?
Public audit information	Public summary URL	Can candidates access it?
Candidate notice	Proposed notice and delivery record at least 10 business days before use	Who sends it before use?

The city specifies notice 10 business days before use of a covered AEDT. The employer designs the notice route and records delivery. A generic vendor brochure cannot show delivery to each affected candidate. If the vendor changes the model, recheck the audit date and whether the published information still describes the tool being used. The public page gives a practical evidence list; it does not decide a disputed scope classification for this company.²

Validate the actual job test

The EEOC says an employer remains responsible for ensuring its tests are valid under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. That responsibility does not transfer because a vendor presents a polished accuracy chart. The evidence request names the predicted outcome, test population and cutoff. It also compares those conditions with the vacancy.¹

For the kitchen opening, the team identifies the role's real requirements. It then asks whether the score measures relevant skills. A score built on historical office hires may not answer that question. For an operations vacancy, the relevant tasks may differ again. Each role needs its own evidence. One generic validation paragraph cannot cover every vacancy. The point is to connect the selection procedure to the job for which it is used.¹

The EEOC also warns that a neutral test can disproportionately exclude protected groups unless it is justified under the law. That means the employer needs to inspect outcomes as well as a vendor's claimed intent. Ask for evidence that can be interpreted for the proposed use and a way to investigate exclusions once the system runs. An unexplained aggregate score is not a complete validation file.¹

Give applicants an accessible route

The ADA's guidance says reasonable accommodations apply during hiring unless they would create undue hardship. The employer makes a contact available before an inaccessible step arises. It needs an alternative way to complete the assessment and a person authorised to respond. An accommodation route that exists only in a staff manual may be invisible to the person who needs it.³

For the catering company, imagine a resume upload that the tool cannot parse or an assessment format a candidate cannot use. The owner must be able to pause automated exclusion. A person then considers and records the alternative. This is an implementation example, not a claim that one accommodation suits every candidate. The individual request and actual task guide the response.³

Staff should understand that an “objective” score can still produce a disability barrier. Testing accessibility only after applicants complain leaves the first cohort exposed to the problem. Include the accommodation contact, alternative route and response owner in the procurement checklist.³

Review exclusions and vendor changes

A named hiring owner reviews exclusions. That person also monitors recorded reasons. That person needs access to the proposed decision rule, a way to correct an obvious parsing error and a route for an accommodation request. Human review must happen while a hiring decision can still change. A later monthly report cannot restore an interview that has already passed.¹^,3

The vendor agreement should also create a practical change signal. If the model, inputs or cutoffs change, the team must know before the altered system is used. The company reassesses job validation and the accessibility route. Covered city use also requires another look at the audit and notice record. The employer's continuing responsibility under the EEOC guidance is the reason to repeat this check.¹^,2^,3

This is also a useful boundary between automation and decision making. The company can use software to organise applicants while keeping a clear human owner for a consequential exclusion. The degree of assistance should be recorded in the actual workflow, not described in abstract vendor terms.¹^,2

For related process choices, compare agents and automation platforms, customer support triage, accounts payable automation and order processing automation.

No launch decision is complete until the actual hiring use and its evidence are recorded.

In words, the tree branches like this: identify the software's hiring influence, assess New York City AEDT scope, obtain any required audit and notice evidence, validate each job test, provide an accommodation path, then name the person who reviews exclusions and vendor changes.

What to do next

The team first writes down one vacancy and one proposed software workflow. The vendor must supply evidence matching that use. Procurement waits until the city, validation and accessibility questions have owners. Use AI Foundation Audit as the next step for assessing the wider AI project.