NYC Local Law 144 — Module 3
The audit is published. The next cycle opens tomorrow. Candidates have the right to know — and a right to opt out.
Your Role
People Operations Manager, Vantage Property Group
The bias audit published Friday. The cultural-fit factor is suspended. The next hiring cycle — 38 open roles including the replacement Vantage Capital CFO brief — opens tomorrow at 09:00.
You are four days into candidate notice implementation. Rachel Voss, General Counsel, wants a sign-off meeting today. Marcus Smith sent a new letter at 06:41 this morning.
Three decisions about how you tell candidates the tool is being used on them — and what happens when one of them says no.
§ Section references — click to read the NYC Admin Code section.
From: Marcus Smith <m.smith@smithruiz.law>
To: Sam Rourke <s.rourke@vantagepg.com>
Cc: Rachel Voss <r.voss@vantagepg.com>
§ 20-871(b) notice deficiency — 2024 cohort
Ms Rourke,
Having reviewed the bias audit published 14 March, we note the audit covers candidate data from 1 January 2024 to 28 February 2025.
During that period TalentScope processed approximately 11,000 applications at Vantage. Our preliminary investigation indicates none of those candidates received prior written notice that an automated employment decision tool would be used, as required by NYC Admin Code § 20-871(b).
We are not yet asserting a claim. We are asking, in good faith, what Vantage proposes to do regarding the 2024 cohort. The firm would prefer a remediation proposal to a formal filing.
Regards,
Marcus Smith
Eleven thousand candidates. None of them received prior notice. The audit did not cure this — it made it visible.
Your 9 AM meeting with Rachel now has a second agenda item nobody budgeted for.
| Option | Timing | Coverage | Alternative process |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Banner + direct email 10 biz days pre-screen | Live by 09:00 tomorrow | All new candidates | Linked opt-out — manual review panel |
| B. Website privacy policy update only | Already live | Passive | Not offered |
| Retroactive notice to 2024 cohort | Smith demand — undefined | ~11,000 past applicants | Case-by-case re-score offered |
Before you draft the candidate notice, confirm what the law requires. Under § 20-871(b), which of these elements must appear in the notice to candidates?
Select all that apply, then check your answers.
Rachel:
“Tomorrow 38 roles open. I need notice that satisfies § 20-871(b) — ten business days in advance, specified content, a genuine alternative process. What’s your design?”
How do you design candidate notice for the new cycle?
Your choice
Banner + direct email 10 days pre-screen + alternative process formNotice on the careers site at application. Email confirmation with full § 20-871(b) content 10 business days before any AEDT screening. Alternative-process form linked from both. Manual review panel for opt-outs.
Your choice
Email notice at application, no 10-day leadAuto-email on application submission covers the notice content. Run TalentScope the same day. Add the alternative-process form as a link in the email footer.
Your choice
Add LL144 disclosure to the application confirmation email every candidate already receivesEvery applicant already gets an auto-confirmation when they submit. Adding the TalentScope disclosure and opt-out link to that email means notice goes out through a documented channel that already exists — no new system, no cycle delay, and every candidate has a timestamped record of receiving it.
The 10-business-day lead is a hard minimum — it runs from when the candidate receives notice, not from when they apply. Any cycle that runs TalentScope before day 11 post-notice is screening candidates who haven’t been given the required lead time. The cycle delay is the compliance cost.
Notice at application with same-day screening eliminates the 10-business-day window before it starts. And a footer link isn’t a genuine alternative process — it’s a link. Two gaps in the same notice system means every application in the new cycle is a compliance deficiency from day one.
A privacy policy is a legal document about data handling. It is not candidate notice that a specific AI tool is evaluating them for a specific role. A candidate who applies, gets screened, and never receives direct communication about TalentScope has not been notified — regardless of what the privacy policy technically discloses.
From: David Ortiz <d.ortiz.nyc@gmail.com>
To: Alternative Process <alt-process@vantagepg.com>
Request for alternative selection process — Senior Property Analyst (Req 2025-0412)
Dear Hiring Team,
I received the notice that TalentScope will be used to evaluate my application. Under NYC Local Law 144 I am requesting an alternative process.
I am not asking for special consideration. I am asking for my application to be reviewed by a human being without an AI score attached. I understand there may be a delay.
Thank you.
David Ortiz
Exactly the letter the notice is supposed to trigger. And exactly the letter that nobody has built an actual process to handle.
There are now three more like it in the inbox.
Four opt-out requests in 48 hours. No formal alt-process team exists. Nora has offered to ‘just have the hiring manager read the resume.’ Rachel has flagged that is not actually a different process.
How do you operate the alternative process?
Your choice
Stand up a three-person manual review panel — no AEDT score attachedHR Ombudsperson + one hiring manager from a different team + one external consultant. They see the resume, cover letter, and written work sample. Turnaround: 5 business days. Real parallel track.
Your choice
Hiring manager reviews the resume — without TalentScope scoreHiring manager opens the application in a view that hides the TalentScope score. Same person, same process, just without the number.
Your choice
Route opt-out candidates to a hiring manager for a full file review before the TalentScope score is unlockedThe hiring manager will review the file anyway. Flag the opt-out in the system, route those candidates to a manager who hasn’t seen the score yet, and have them complete a structured review before the score is released. Opt-out candidates get genuine personal attention — and TalentScope still runs in the background.
An alternative process that removes the AEDT entirely — structured panel, documented rubric, no score attached — is what ‘alternative’ actually means. The value is that it gives a candidate who opts out a genuinely different pathway, not a modified version of the same one.
A hiring manager who reviews a file ‘without the score visible’ has still worked with TalentScope on every other candidate in the same cycle. The score exists in the system. Hiding it for one review doesn’t create a genuinely different process — it just makes the record harder to read in discovery.
Logging an opt-out and proceeding with the standard review is confirmation that no alternative process exists. David Ortiz’s follow-up email arrives 11 minutes later because a candidate who opts out and still gets screened by the same tool will notice — and will put the question in writing.
Marcus Smith’s assistant has scheduled a call for 11:00. Rachel will be on. Nora will be on.
On the table: the ~11,000 2024 cohort candidates who never received § 20-871(b) notice. Smith is not asking for money yet. He is asking what Vantage proposes to do.
Three postures Rachel wants a view on before the call.
Eleven thousand candidates never received prior notice. The audit period retroactively exposes every one of them as a separate § 20-871(b) deficiency. Smith has offered a conversation. Rachel wants your recommendation first.
What is Vantage’s position on the 2024 cohort?
Your choice
Offer retroactive notice + optional re-score by the manual panelMail all 11,000 candidates with the § 20-871(b) notice content. Offer the alternative-process re-score to any who request it within 60 days. Document everything for the compliance file.
Your choice
Offer remediation only to candidates in the adverse-impact categoriesFocus the offer on the Hispanic/Latino candidates the audit identified as adversely affected. Targets the harm. Cheaper. Defensible on materiality grounds.
Your choice
Decline remediation; assert the audit cures the exposureThe audit is published. The tool is classified. Forward notice is in place. The 2024 cohort was processed under the prior compliance understanding.
Offering retroactive notice and a re-score pathway to the full 2024 cohort addresses the violation at scale. It is not cheap and it is not quick. It is the only posture that doesn’t invite a follow-up letter about the applicants who were left out.
The notice requirement applies to every candidate an AEDT is used on, not just those in adversely-affected categories. Scoping remediation to the audit’s identified groups creates a second compliance question about the candidates you did not include.
The audit cures the forward-looking compliance gap. It does not cure the 11,000 individual notice violations that existed before the audit was published. Each one is a separate exposure, and each one is still alive when Smith’s next letter arrives.
Module Complete
Remediation offered.
Six weeks later, the DCWP opens a file. Whatever you built now becomes what you defend.
Module Complete
Gaps remain.
The DCWP’s letter arrives Monday. Your compliance file is the entire defence.
Module Complete
Complaint incoming.
The investigator is already assigned. Module 4 starts with the letter you did not want to receive.