AI Use in Hiring Under the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA)

On January 1, 2026, Texas became one of the first states to make a comprehensive AI law when the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, commonly called TRAIGA, took effect. TRAIGA applies to all public and private employers conducting business in Texas, including government agencies such as school districts. This article walks through what TRAIGA requires of employers using AI in hiring, where it leaves gaps that federal law fills in, and what sensible compliance looks like.

What Is TRAIGA?

Governor Greg Abbott signed TRAIGA, House Bill 149, into law on June 22, 2025, and it is now codified in the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The Act’s reach is broad by design and applies to any person who conducts business in Texas, produces a product or service used by Texas residents, or develops or deploys an AI system in the state.

The provision that matters most to employers is the Act’s unlawful discrimination section. Under Section 552.056 of the Business and Commerce Code, a person may not develop or deploy an AI system with the “intent” to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class in violation of state or federal law. Critically, the statute goes on to say that a disparate impact alone is not sufficient by itself to demonstrate an intent to discriminate.

This standard is significantly more narrow than the one most employment lawyers grew up with. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a neutral employment practice can violate Title VII if it has a disproportionate effect on a protected group, regardless of the employer’s intent. In that case, an employer required employees to either obtain a high school education or pass a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment. Although unintentional, the test disqualified a disproportionate number of minorities and the Supreme Court ruled that such testing violated the Act. Today, employers must be able to show the hiring practice is related to job performance and necessary for business.

TRAIGA does not adopt that framework. Under Texas law, an AI hiring tool that happens to screen out disproportionate numbers of a protected group is not, by itself, a TRAIGA violation. The state’s Attorney General still must show that the tool was built or used with discriminatory intent. However, Texas employers should not read TRAIGA’s intent requirement as a shield against liability because it only governs claims brought under Texas law. Federal laws such as Title VII, the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) remain fully in force, and all three still permit disparate impact claims regardless of what TRAIGA says.

What Happens When You Find Bias in Your AI Hiring?

Suppose an employee discovers their AI hiring tool is rejecting a disproportionate share of applicants from a protected group. The instinct to fix it immediately is correct, but how the employer fixes it matters. In Ricci v. DeStefano,557 U.S. 557 (2009), an employer discarded the results of a promotional exam to avoid liability after a racial disparity emerged. The white and Hispanic firefighters who would have been promoted sued for race discrimination and won. The Supreme Court held that before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the purpose of avoiding an unintentional disparate impact claim, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability.

Applied to AI hiring tools, the lesson is that retraining the model or adjusting the criteria it screens for are defensible responses to discovering bias. However, manually overriding individual scores based on an applicant’s race, sex, age, or other protected trait can create exactly the kind of intentional discrimination claim that both Title VII and TRAIGA’s Section 552.056 are aimed at preventing.

Enforcement

TRAIGA gives exclusive enforcement authority to the Texas Attorney General under section 552.101 and does not create a private right of action, such that an employee cannot sue an employer directly under the Act the way they could under Title VII. The Attorney General is required to maintain an online complaint portal so that once a complaint triggers an investigation, the Act gives the Attorney General authority to gather information about the AI system at issue. Before filing suit, the Attorney General must provide notice of the alleged violation and a 60-dayperiod to cure it. If the violation is not cured, civil penalties can run from$10,000 to $200,000 per violation.

Key Takeaway

TRAIGA sets a narrow bar based on intent for private employers using AI in hiring, but it still operates alongside federal laws including Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA, which reach discriminatory effects regardless of intent. Texas employers should build their compliance programs around all laws at once, not just TRAIGA, by auditing all AI tools used in the hiring process. Most importantly, improving AI in hiring tore move bias is essential for compliance, but adjusting individual results by a protected characteristic can lead to potential liability.

How JCA Law Can Help

JCA Law can assist public and private employers by responding to Attorney General investigations or federal discrimination charges for disparate impact claims. From helping you take advantage of TRAIGA’s cure period to keeping an eye on the federal exposure the Act does not resolve, JCA Law can offer guidance through each step of the process.

‍