With AI recruiting, is diversity in trouble? AI is already deeply embedded in hiring. It screens résumés, helps match candidates to roles, drafts outreach, and increasingly shapes how employers and applicants connect. That’s no longer theoretical. Recruiting is now the top HR function where organizations are using AI, according to SHRM’s 2025 research.  Most of the conversation around AI adoption in HR has focused on efficiency. Faster screening. Better matching. Less administrative burden. However, a candidate pool full of polished, optimized, algorithm-friendly professional narratives that sound strong at first but are increasingly hard to distinguish from one another. The same keywords. The same structure. The same tone. All of it cleaned up, smoothed out and often generated by the same invisible machine. When the hiring process gets flooded with carbon-copy applications, speed may increase, but clarity doesn’t always improve.  The candidate who knows how to optimize for an AI-shaped process may not be the same candidate who brings the strongest judgment, the clearest thinking or the best long-term fit. SHRM recently reported that 19% of organizations using automation or AI in hiring said their tools had overlooked or screened out qualified applicants.  Source: HR Executive 4/17/26

Too old to be a candidate? HCL America, a technology consulting company based in Santa Clara, California, will pay $495,000 to settle an age and national origin discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August 2024, according to a consent decree filed April 2.  According to the complaint, HCL America interviewed and then refused to hire a candidate because — as the sales director told the hiring team via email, copying the interviewee — he was “too old” for the position. The sales director suggested the team prioritize “diverse candidates,” referring to those who were non-Indian, female, or both, the EEOC said.  Under the two-year consent decree, in addition to paying the interviewee $495,000, HCL America will work with a third-party consultant to review and revise its policies and procedures regarding age- and national origin-based discrimination. It will also train its recruitment staff, managers and supervisors.  Source: HR Dive 4/7/26

Many avoid healthcare costs because they are unaffordable even with insurance: A large portion of U.S. employees with health insurance are skipping or delaying care because they can't afford it, jeopardizing their well-being and productivity at work.  That's according to a new study by Paytient, which examines the impact of insured employees delaying or forgoing care due to cost. Forty percent of workers with employer-sponsored plans say they have put off medical treatment because it was too expensive.   The study, titled "The Hidden Lives of Workplace Insured Americans," also found that 39% of employees delayed primary care due to cost, while 56% went without dental treatment and 48% put off specialist referrals. The downstream financial impact of these decisions can be significant: Non-adherence is estimated to account for up to 69% of medication-related hospitalizations, which costs the healthcare system roughly $100 billion per year, according to the report. Why unaffordable? Over the last 25 years, the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance has become disconnected from worker pay at a staggering rate — total family premiums rose by 342% and worker contributions increased by 308%. During that same period, average worker earnings grew by only 119%.  Source: EBN 4/16/26

AI is taking HR analytics to a new level: For years, HR teams have been climbing a maturity curve in people analytics – from basic headcount reports to sophisticated predictive models. But according to Justin Angsuwat, chief people officer at Culture Amp, that entire progression now represents just the starting point of a far more transformative shift.  "When you zoom out, you're like, wow, that people analytics view itself is actually the start of the maturity curve of an AI version of that," Angsuwat explained. The implication is stark: the analytics capabilities HR teams spent years building are being fundamentally reimagined by artificial intelligence. While AI initially "starts to accelerate that workflow," the more profound question emerging is: "do we need a workflow at all?" This same logic applies to analytics – do HR teams still need to spend weeks designing studies and requesting data cuts, or can AI surface insights in real time?  The practical implications of this shift are already visible in how Culture Amp approaches employee engagement. The company has "moved now from you know your engagement score is 72 to 'This specific issue is going to cost you $3 million if you don't address it,'" fundamentally changing conversations with boards and executive teams. Source: HR Director 4/14/26

Minnesota may pass law for notice if AI is replacing workers: Fear of being replaced by AI is palpable: As early as 2020, workers in tech-heavy industries were hinting that the fear of being replaced outweighed the benefits.  For Minnesotans grappling with their own replacement worries, a proposed bill in the state House of Representatives may give them peace of mind — and provide a case study for any other legislative labor committees looking to shape the future of the work in their state. The Safeguarding Human Intelligence and Employment in Labor Displacement Act seeks to “protect workers from AI-driven job loss,” according to a statement from the Minnesota House. If passed, HF4369 would require “notice and a transitional employment period for employees displaced by artificial intelligence.” It would require that employers provide a 90-day notice before deploying technology that could displace jobs as well as an opportunity for employees to upskill or reskill.  The employer would need to issue the AI-related notice to its employees’ labor representatives, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, local officials, and the regional workforce board. Failure to comply would disqualify an employer from receiving state contracts and could result in a fine of up to $10,000 per employee.  Source: HR Dive 3/19/26