Defending Employer and Vendor Workplace Surveillance Liability in the AI Era

An employer flips on keystroke logging and screenshot capture across a multistate workforce, and months later those same logs surface in a discrimination suit—offered as the legitimate reason for a termination, then picked apart by a plaintiff’s statistical-disparity expert. That scenario is live in 2026: Illinois HB 3773’s AI-decision notice rules and BIPA’s written-consent requirements both bite when facial-recognition doors and voice-sentiment tools activate on January 1, and Colorado’s SB 24-205 sets a June 30 deadline to qualify for the Attorney General’s safe harbor on algorithmic discrimination. Any lawyer advising an employer that monitors its people—or a vendor selling the tools—is already exposed, and a single-state notice template won’t hold across NY, CT, and DE. This session delivers the multistate notice-and-consent package, BIPA consent documentation, NYC Local Law 144 bias-audit workflows, and the FRE 702 Daubert challenges that defeat plaintiff experts. You’ll leave able to build a monitoring rollout that survives challenge and rebut pretext claims under McDonnell Douglas and Reeves.