Law / United States / 
New Jersey
AI-based electronic monitoring and automated employment decision systems in employment and public services (S4075 / A4981)
N.J. S4075 / A4981 (2026-2027), supplementing Title 34 of the Revised Statutes
An AI risk obligations rule binding public and private bodies.
- Private right of action
- Yes
- Audit expectation
- none
As of .
What it requires
- Do not use an electronic monitoring tool, an automated employment decision system, or an automated benefit or service decision system until an impact assessment has screened it and an independent auditor or, for governmental use, the Department of Labor and Workforce Development has approved it as compliant.NIST AI RMFMANAGE 1.1NIST AI RMFMAP 5.1
- If you are a vendor of an automated employment decision system seeking approval, give the independent auditor or the department documentation of the system's design and development, its intended purpose and outputs, and an analysis of its accuracy, reliability, validity, and error rates.NIST AI RMFMAP 2.2
- Give your employees and any union representing them written notice 60 days in advance that you intend to implement an automated employment decision system or electronic monitoring tool.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8
- Notify the department and each affected employee or service beneficiary in writing within 48 hours of a security breach of their data, describing the categories of data accessed or acquired and the steps you will take (Section 5).no control in the NIST AI RMF
- Do not monitor workers in bathrooms, rest areas, or locker rooms or outside of work times, and do not compel workers to install monitoring software on personal devices.NIST AI RMFMAP 3.3
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text, as of .
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 2.2Information about the AI system’s knowledge limits and how system output may be utilized and overseen by humans is documented. Documentation provides sufficient information to assist relevant AI actors when making decisions and taking subsequent actions.
- MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
- MAP 5.1Likelihood and magnitude of each identified impact (both potentially beneficial and harmful) based on expected use, past uses of AI systems in similar contexts, public incident reports, feedback from those external to the team that developed or deployed the AI system, or other data are identified and documented.
- MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
- MANAGE 1.1A determination is made as to whether the AI system achieves its intended purposes and stated objectives and whether its development or deployment should proceed.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
New Jersey Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development, by administrative penalty; an affected employee, service beneficiary, or applicant may also sue
What it makes you log
Logging duty
The bill's impact-assessment, notice, and monitoring-limit duties do not themselves require the keeping of a log; the department keeps a public registry of impact assessment reports.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
This bill would regulate the use of artificial intelligence-based systems for electronic monitoring regarding employment and public services. An electronic monitoring tool, automated employment decision system, or automated benefit or service decision system could not be used until it is screened in an impact assessment and approved as compliant by an independent auditor or, for governmental use, by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
Vendors of automated employment decision systems seeking approval must give the independent auditor or the department documentation of the system's design and development, its intended purpose and outputs, and an analysis of its accuracy, reliability, validity, and error rates. An employer or public entity would have to give its employees and any union written notice 60 days in advance that it intends to implement an automated employment decision system or electronic monitoring tool.
The bill prohibits, among other things, monitoring workers in bathrooms, rest areas, or locker rooms, surveillance outside of work times, and compelling workers to install monitoring software on personal devices. The Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development could assess administrative penalties of up to $1,000 for a first violation for each employee harmed by the violation. For each later violation the maximum is $5,000 for each employee harmed.
An employee, service beneficiary, or applicant could bring a civil action against the employer or public entity. The bill would take effect 18 months after enactment. Senate Bill 4075 was introduced on , reported from the Senate Labor Committee on , and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. Assembly Bill 4981 is its identical bill.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app makes employment decisions or makes public services decisions.