Can I use Ai to screen job applicants in Texas?

That is the line to remember. Texas does not ban screening tools. It bars using them to discriminate on purpose. If your tool sorts resumes, ranks applicants, or flags candidates by rules you set, you can keep using it, but you need to know what it measures and be able to show it is not screening people out for a protected reason.

What does TRAIGA actually bar?

TRAIGA targets intent. A system used to intentionally discriminate in hiring is barred. Whether a given screening tool is a covered system is a question for counsel. That sounds narrow, and in one way it is. Texas did not write a broad bias audit rule like New York City did, and it did not write a notice rule the way other states have started to.

But do not read that as a free pass. The same federal laws that applied before TRAIGA still apply. Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA apply whether a person or an algorithm makes the decision. If your tool screens out older applicants, applicants with disabilities, or applicants of a protected group at a higher rate, the fact that a vendor sold you the tool does not protect you. The employer stays responsible for the outcome.

TRAIGA adds a state-level bar on top of that federal floor. It also means Texas employers now have a named state law an applicant, a regulator, or a plaintiff's lawyer can point to. That changes the conversation even if the rule itself is narrow.

Does Texas require a bias audit or a notice to applicants?

TRAIGA does not require an independent bias audit the way New York City Local Law 144 does. It does not spell out a candidate notice duty either.

That is the law as written today. It is not a reason to skip the basics. Telling applicants when Ai is involved is good practice everywhere, and it is required in some of the states your applicants may live in. If you hire in more than one state, the strictest rule you touch tends to set your standard in practice.

The same goes for testing. You do not need a Texas statute to tell you to check whether your tool treats people fairly. You need the answer before someone else asks the question.

What should I do first?

Start with an inventory. Most teams cannot name every tool that touches a hiring decision, and that is the gap.

• List every tool that screens, scores, or ranks candidates. Include the obvious ones, the applicant tracking system and the screening add-on, and the ones people forget, like the chatbot that answers applicant questions and the scheduling tool that ranks interview slots.
• Ask each vendor two questions. First, what bias testing have you done, and can I see the results? Second, what data does the tool use to score people? If a vendor cannot answer either question in plain language, that is a finding, not a detail to work around later.
• Tell candidates when Ai is involved in their review. A short line in the application or the first email is enough. Say what the tool does and that a human reviews the result.
• Keep the records. Save the tool list, the vendor answers, the criteria you set, and the human decisions. If a decision is ever questioned, the record is what shows your work.

What to do next

TRAIGA is one state rule in a set that keeps growing. California, Illinois, New York City, and Colorado each took a different path, and the dates and duties do not match. If you hire across state lines, check the rule for each place you hire, not just the one your office sits in.

Read the overview of why Ai needs a strategy on the Why Ai page. If you want someone to check your tools against the rules that apply to your business, that is what an Ai risk and compliance audit is for.

HR guidance, not legal advice.