You will be provided with a reference and some statements. Please determine whether each statement is 'supported', 'unsupported', or 'unknown' with respect to the reference. Please note:
First, assess whether the reference contains any valid content. If the reference contains no valid information, such as a 'page not found' message, then all statements should be considered 'unknown'.
If the reference is valid, for a given statement: if the facts or data it contains can be found entirely or partially within the reference, it is considered 'supported' (data accepts rounding); if all facts and data in the statement cannot be found in the reference, it is considered 'unsupported'.

You should return the result in a JSON list format, where each item in the list contains the statement's index and the judgment result, for example:
[
    {
        "idx": 1,
        "result": "supported"
    },
    {
        "idx": 2,
        "result": "unsupported"
    }
]

Below are the reference and statements:
<reference>
AI Hiring Tools Can Yield Racial Bias and Systemic Rejection | Stanford HAI

The first large-scale study of hiring algorithms in the wild finds concerning patterns to how systems reject candidates.

Stanford
University
Stanford Home
Maps & Directions
Search Stanford
Emergency Info
Terms of Use
Privacy
Copyright
Trademarks
Non-Discrimination
Accessibility
© Stanford University.
Stanford, California 94305.
Pause Media
Navigate
About
Events
AI Glossary
Careers
Search
Participate
Get Involved
Support HAI
Contact Us
Stay Up To Date
Get the latest news, advances in research, policy work, and education program updates from HAI in your inbox weekly.
Sign Up
For Latest News
Skip to content
About
About
About
People
Get Involved with HAI
Support HAI
Subscribe to Email
Research
Research
Research
Fellowship Programs
Grants
Student Affinity Groups
Centers & Labs
Research Publications
Research Partners
Education
Education
Education
Executive and Professional Education
Government and Policymakers
K-12
Stanford Students
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy Publications
Policymaker Education
Student Opportunities
AI Index
AI Index
AI Index
AI Index Report
Global Vibrancy Tool
People
News
Events
Industry
Centers & Labs
AI Hiring Tools Can Yield Racial Bias and Systemic Rejection | Stanford HAI
news
AI Hiring Tools Can Yield Racial Bias and Systemic Rejection
Date
May 26, 2026
Topics
Machine Learning
Ethics, Equity, Inclusion
Workforce, Labor
The first large-scale study of hiring algorithms in the wild finds concerning patterns to how systems reject candidates.
It’s graduation season and the Class of 2026 is entering one of the toughest labor markets in years. Entry-level hiring has slowed. At the same time, AI tools have made it easier than ever for job seekers to fire off applications. Together, fewer jobs and more applications mean companies are now seeing
nearly three times
as many applications for entry-level positions as in 2022. AI is changing not just if firms hire, but how they hire. Ninety percent of U.S. employers use AI screening tools to sort and rank job seekers, with most relying on the same few third-party vendors. When one algorithm influences many employers, what is the impact on job seekers?
We follow 3.4 million people who submit 4 million job applications to 1,700 job postings across 150 employers and 11 industry sectors. Each job application was assessed by an AI hiring tool built by a single third-party vendor.
Our new paper
offers a rare look inside the “black box” of algorithmic hiring, showing that these tools increase racial bias and shut the same people out of jobs everywhere they apply.
The hiring AI pipeline: Job seekers submit applications, their applications are sent to the hiring AI vendor, the vendor’s machine learning models make predictions, and the resulting labels of “recommend” or “do not recommend” are sent to the employer to inform decisions.
Surfacing racial bias at scale
We find substantial evidence of racial disparities in AI-based candidate screening. To measure adverse impact, we apply the EEOC’s “four-fifths rule,” which flags a position when one group is recommended at less than 80% of the rate of the most-recommended group —
the relevant U.S. employment law (Title VII)
. We discovered that 26% of Black applicants and 15% of Asian applicants applied to positions where the AI system discriminated against their racial group. To put this in perspective: If the AI had recommended Black and Asian candidates at the same rate as it recommended the most-favored group (typically white applicants), 40,000 more of their applications would have advanced to the next stage of hiring.
How adverse impact is measured matters. The vendor we study screens applicants for many different positions across many employers. If we pool all of its recommendations together — treating the vendor as one giant hiring process — we don’t find adverse impact. If we look at each position separately, as would be typical in an evaluation of adverse impact, then we expose the adverse impact in many positions. For example, imagine the AI tool frequently recommends Black applicants for warehouse jobs but rarely recommends them for finance jobs. If we were to average all the jobs together, those two patterns would cancel each other out and it would seem like there is no discrimination. The big-picture average hides the real discrimination happening job by job.
Our study finds significant adverse impact on Black and Asian applicants.
Algorithmic monocultures can give rise to systemic rejection
We also study new concerns brought about by the shared dependence on a single hiring vendor. In
our

prior

work
, we theorized that algorithmic monocultures in which many employers came to rely on the same algorithmic recommendations could lead to some people being shut out from jobs. Using our large dataset of real hiring AI recommendations, we test our hypothesis. We find that people who submit multiple applications to positions screened by
the same
algorithmic hiring vendor are more likely to be rejected from every position to which they apply than would be true if the companies made decisions statistically independently from one another. Ten percent of applicants who submit four applications are rejected from all the places to which they apply.
Our research also found that this pattern does not appear to be the case in other circumstances. We analyzed data from the largest prior
study
of hiring decisions, which sent 83,000 applications to 108 Fortune 500 firms during the same time period as our study and did not focus on whether AI was used to make decisions. We found that the rate at which applicants were rejected from every firm they applied to in this data was no higher than what you’d expect if each company decided independently of the others.
This suggests market concentration matters: As a single hiring vendor comes to dominate screening for an industry, it may be more likely that candidates are shut out.
We find applicants are more likely to be rejected from every position they apply to than would be predicted by the baseline of each position making statistically independent decisions.
We analyze data from the largest previous
study
of hiring outcomes, finding that the rate at which applicants are rejected from every position they apply to is effectively predicted by the baseline of statistically independent decisions.
AI screening tools bring together three properties that should not co-exist in high-stakes decision-making: They are pervasively adopted, highly consequential, and opaque to the public. Our research makes progress toward illuminating the consequences of AI hiring tools, but much of this technology’s impact remains unclear. This space is rapidly evolving as new tools are built using language models and agents.
The key lesson from this work is the value of and need for independent research into algorithmic hiring. Without independent research, it will be difficult to pursue
evidence-based AI policy
to govern AI’s impact on individual job prospects and overall workforce composition.
Share
Link copied to clipboard!
Contributor(s)
Rishi Bommasani, Sarah H. Bana, Kathleen A. Creel, Dan Jurafsky, Percy Liang
Related News
HAI Student Affinity Groups Take On Society’s Emerging Questions
Madeleine Wright
Jun 26, 2026
News
Stanford students across disciplines are teaming up to tackle society’s pressing questions in the age of AI.
News
HAI Student Affinity Groups Take On Society’s Emerging Questions
Madeleine Wright
Arts, Humanities
Generative AI
Ethics, Equity, Inclusion
Privacy, Safety, Security
Jun 26
Stanford students across disciplines are teaming up to tackle society’s pressing questions in the age of AI.
AI Coding Agents Fail at Teamwork
Andrew Myers
Jun 01, 2026
News
Two models working together perform worse than one alone, exposing a critical gap in artificial intelligence capabilities.
News
AI Coding Agents Fail at Teamwork
Andrew Myers
Generative AI
Machine Learning
Jun 01
Two models working together perform worse than one alone, exposing a critical gap in artificial intelligence capabilities.
State Policymakers Divided Over How To Address AI Job-Loss Fears
San Francisco Examiner
May 30, 2026
Media Mention
HAI Director James Landay discusses historical technological impacts on productivity growth.
Media Mention
Your browser does not support the video tag.
State Policymakers Divided Over How To Address AI Job-Loss Fears
San Francisco Examiner
Workforce, Labor
Economy, Markets
May 30
HAI Director James Landay discusses historical technological impacts on productivity growth.
</reference>

<statements>
1. Parallel distortions are evident in labor market intermediation and recruitment infrastructure.
2. Large-scale investigations by Stanford HAI into algorithmic candidate-screening systems—evaluating 4 million job applications submitted across 150 employers—reveal substantial allocative disparities.
3. Machine learning screening tools frequently violated the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) four-fifths rule, generating adverse impacts that disqualified Black candidates in 26% of evaluated openings and Asian candidates in 15% of openings relative to favored applicant groups.
4. Furthermore, because the corporate recruiting market is dominated by a narrow set of software vendors, applicants who are rejected by an algorithm's predictive weighting suffer systematic, cross-employer exclusion across multiple firms within an industry.
5. Establishing enforceable legal standards for algorithmic transparency, mandating recurring third-party audits of predictive hiring tools, and enforcing compliance with anti-discrimination statutes such as the EEOC's four-fifths rule are critical to preventing algorithmic market lockouts.
</statements>

Begin the assessment now. Output only the JSON list, without any conversational text or explanations.