Regulatory Enforcement
EEOC v. iTutorGroup
EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc., Shanghai Ping'An Intelligent Education Technology Co., Ltd., and Tutor Group Limited
Where it stands
Consent decree announced September 11, 2023 providing $365,000 in monetary relief plus five years of EEOC monitoring, anti-discrimination policy and training requirements, a prohibition on requesting applicants' dates of birth, and an obligation to notify and interview previously rejected applicants if U.S. hiring resumes.
Key ruling
The EEOC's first settlement of a lawsuit involving algorithmic/automated hiring discrimination — establishing that rule-based automated screening is treated as ordinary employer conduct under the ADEA, with no 'the software did it' defense.
Note on this record
Exact filing date within 2022 not verified. The screening logic here was hard-coded rules rather than a machine-learning model, so it is an automated-decision case more than a true 'AI' case.The record
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- Case number
- 1:22-cv-02565
- Filed
- 2022
- Defendants
- iTutorGroup, Inc. · Shanghai Ping'An Intelligent Education Technology Co., Ltd. · Tutor Group Limited
- Plaintiffs
- Not a class action — EEOC enforcement action on behalf of more than 200 U.S.-based tutor applicants automatically rejected on the basis of age
- Technology at issue
- iTutorGroup's online tutor application software, programmed to automatically reject female applicants aged 55 or older and male applicants aged 60 or older
- Relief sought
- Monetary relief for rejected applicants and injunctive relief under the ADEA and Title VII.
- Settlement
- $365,000
- Counsel of record
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Claims pleaded
Sources (2)
- iTutorGroup to Pay $365,000 to Settle EEOC Discriminatory Hiring SuitU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · 2023-09-11
- EEOC Settles First AI-Discrimination LawsuitSullivan & Cromwell LLP · 2023-08
This page describes a publicly filed case. This site is not counsel on this matter, nothing here is legal advice, and the allegations described are allegations unless a court has said otherwise.