ACLU Files Civil Rights Complaint Against Hiring Assessment Tool, Citing Potential Autism Discrimination

San Francisco, CA – October 9, 2026 – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Northern California have lodged a formal complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, accusing Criteria Corp., a prominent hiring and employment assessment firm, of selling a product that may unlawfully discriminate against applicants with autism. The complaint centers on Criteria Corp.’s emotional intelligence assessment tool, Emotify, which the ACLU contends closely mirrors clinical diagnostic methods for autism and could therefore constitute an illegal medical examination or disability-related inquiry conducted before a job offer is extended.

The legal challenge, filed on Tuesday, alleges that Emotify’s design and implementation potentially violate California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This landmark legislation prohibits employment practices that discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics, including disability. The ACLU argues that the assessment’s methodology, which includes matching and prediction games alongside an emotional problem-solving scenario game, is so similar to established autism diagnostic tools that it risks disproportionately screening out autistic individuals from employment opportunities.

Criteria Corp., the company behind Emotify, has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the allegations. The complaint also broadly casts a shadow over other Criteria Corp. products, suggesting that further investigation into their cognitive aptitude assessments, such as Cognify, may be warranted due to potential disparities based on race and gender.

The Core of the Complaint: Emotify’s Diagnostic Parallels

At the heart of the ACLU’s grievance is Emotify’s assessment methodology. According to Criteria Corp.’s own website, the tool evaluates candidates’ emotional intelligence through a series of interactive games. These include tasks requiring candidates to match emotions, predict emotional responses, and navigate hypothetical scenarios involving emotional challenges.

The ACLU’s complaint, detailed in a document filed with the California Civil Rights Department, asserts that these evaluative methods bear an uncanny resemblance to diagnostic tools used by clinicians to identify individuals on the autism spectrum. Such parallels, the ACLU argues, transform Emotify from a standard pre-employment screening into a de facto medical or psychological examination. Under California law, employers are generally prohibited from conducting such inquiries or examinations until after a conditional offer of employment has been made.

Furthermore, the complaint highlights that the speed at which these assessments are administered, a factor differentiating Emotify from some clinical tools, exacerbates the risk of disparate impact. For individuals with autism, who may process information or respond to social cues differently, rapid-fire assessments could unfairly penalize them, leading to inaccurate evaluations of their capabilities and suitability for a role.

A Lack of Accommodation and Transparency

Beyond the concern of diagnostic parallels, the ACLU’s complaint also points to a deficiency in Emotify’s design regarding accommodations. The legal filing alleges that the assessment fails to provide candidates with sufficient information about the nature of the evaluation, making it difficult for individuals who may require reasonable accommodations to request them. This lack of transparency and opportunity for accommodation is also cited as a violation of state law, which mandates that employers facilitate equal employment opportunities for all individuals, including those with disabilities.

Broader Concerns: Disparities in Other Assessment Tools

While Emotify is the primary focus of the current complaint, the ACLU has also raised concerns about other products offered by Criteria Corp. The complaint broadly suggests that the company’s suite of assessments may warrant further scrutiny for potential discrimination based on disability, race, and sex.

Specifically, the ACLU points to internal documentation related to Criteria Corp.’s cognitive aptitude assessment, Cognify. According to the ACLU, developers of Cognify themselves flagged "statistically significant and practically meaningful disparities based on race (for Black assessment-takers vs. White assessment-takers) and gender (for female assessment-takers vs. male assessment-takers)" during the assessment’s early development stages. These findings suggest a potential for bias embedded within the design of their cognitive tests, raising further questions about the fairness and legality of Criteria Corp.’s offerings.

Legal Precedent and the Evolving Landscape of AI in Hiring

The legal challenge against Criteria Corp. emerges within a broader context of increasing scrutiny over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic tools in the hiring process. These technologies, while promising efficiency and objectivity, have also come under fire for perpetuating or even amplifying existing societal biases.

The outcomes of such legal battles have varied. In one notable case, Sirius XM was granted summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging that its hiring software disproportionately screened out African American applicants. The court in that instance ruled that the plaintiff had not sufficiently demonstrated how the alleged use of AI constituted discrimination against him.

However, other major players in the HR technology space have faced more persistent legal challenges. Workday, a widely used HR software provider, is currently embroiled in an ongoing case examining whether its screening tools violate California law, specifically FEHA. This case, much like the ACLU’s complaint against Criteria Corp., underscores the significant legal risks associated with AI-driven hiring practices in California.

Official Statements and the Path Forward

Olga Akselrod, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, emphasized the legal obligations of both vendors and employers in ensuring the fairness of hiring assessments. "Both vendors and employers have a legal obligation to thoroughly vet any assessments to ensure that they comply with anti-discrimination laws," Akselrod stated. This sentiment underscores the shared responsibility in preventing discriminatory practices within the hiring pipeline.

The filing of this complaint with the California Civil Rights Department initiates a formal investigation into Criteria Corp.’s practices. The department will now review the allegations, gather further evidence, and potentially engage with both parties to reach a resolution. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of emotional intelligence assessments and other AI-driven hiring tools, potentially setting new precedents for how such technologies are regulated and implemented to ensure equitable employment opportunities for all.

The ACLU’s action serves as a critical reminder that as technology advances, particularly in the realm of AI and algorithmic decision-making, vigilance is paramount to safeguard fundamental civil rights and prevent the perpetuation of systemic discrimination in the workplace. The organization’s stance is clear: innovation in hiring must not come at the expense of fairness, equity, and the legal protections afforded to all individuals.