Massachusetts Courts Tackle AI Screening, Standing in Lie Detector Class Actions
Massachusetts appellate courts consider AI use and standing in lie detector statute class actions.
Why it matters: These cases could set legal precedents for AI governance in employment screening and clarify standing requirements in Massachusetts, impacting HR compliance nationwide.
- Massachusetts prohibits employer use of lie detector tests and mandates notice to job applicants under Chapter 149, Section 19B.
- Class actions filed in 2024 against Walgreens and Shaw's allege failure to provide required notice under the statute.
- Courts have dismissed some claims, like AT&T in February 2024, finding certain assessments are not lie detector tests.
- A 2024 appeals court decision in Kenn v. Eascare addresses standing issues relevant to employment class actions.
- A federal California court allowed discrimination claims against Workday's AI hiring tool to proceed, recognizing AI as an agent of employers.
Massachusetts has seen a recent surge in class action lawsuits alleging violations of its Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 19B, which prohibits employers from requiring lie detector tests and requires employers to provide written notice to job applicants about this prohibition. In 2024, notable suits were filed against Walgreens and Shaw's Supermarkets for allegedly failing to give this required notice, representing a new wave of challenges to employer pre-employment screening practices (classaction.org).
Simultaneously, appellate and federal courts are beginning to explore the intersection of these statutes with emerging AI technologies used in hiring. In February 2024, a Massachusetts federal court rejected a class action against AT&T on the grounds that instructing applicants to answer honestly on assessments was not equivalent to a lie detector test (Law360).
More broadly, the January 2024 Massachusetts Appeals Court decision in Kenn v. Eascare, LLC addressed standing issues in employment-related class actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Justia). This ruling may influence how courts assess plaintiffs' standing in pending and future Massachusetts lie detector statute cases.
Additionally, the use of AI in employment screening faces scrutiny as courts across the U.S. recognize potential discrimination claims. For example, in April 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed claims against Workday's AI hiring tool to proceed, spotlighting the legal risks of delegating hiring decisions to AI systems (Akin Gump).
These Massachusetts cases could significantly shape the legal framework for both AI use and statutory protections in employment law, underscoring the evolving challenges employers face in ensuring compliance while adopting new screening technologies.
By the numbers:
- 1986 — Year Massachusetts Lie Detector Statute was enacted
- $500 — Minimum statutory damages per claimant under the Massachusetts statute
- $530 million — Workday's 2024 acquisition price for HiredScore, AI hiring tool maker
Yes, but: Although some courts have dismissed claims—for example, the AT&T case ruling that honesty instructions are not lie detector tests—the broader impact of AI in hiring screening remains unsettled and could prompt continued litigation.
What's next: Pending appellate rulings in Massachusetts will clarify standing and AI screening boundaries, potentially leading to wider adoption of AI governance standards in HR compliance.