A softer labor market may be influencing benefit decisions for some employers. Before changing paid leave or parental leave policies, employers may wish to consider consistency, communication strategy, workforce impact and applicable legal requirements.
That matters from an ethics and succession-planning perspective, and because Employment Practices Liability (EPL) claims historically track broader social and economic shifts. If benefit reductions are perceived as targeting protected classes, such as parents or caregivers, that erosion of trust can carry lasting consequences.
If labor market conditions change, employers that made benefit changes without a clear and consistently applied rationale may face increased workforce or employment-practices concerns.
The use of AI in hiring and layoffs is compounding the exposure. Litigation is now testing exactly how far employer liability extends when an algorithm, not a person, makes the call and courts are making it clear that liability doesn't shift to the vendor just because the decision was automated.
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidance is that if an employer decides to use AI, the employer is liable if there's discrimination in the output. They can't push it onto a third-party AI chatbot," says Emily Loupee, area senior vice president in Gallagher's Executive and Financial Risk practice.
Recent federal litigation has addressed whether an AI screening provider may act as an employer's agent for purposes of employment discrimination claims. In early 2026, a federal court also addressed claims brought by job applicants under federal anti-discrimination law.
A separate lawsuit filed in 2026 alleges that AI-generated candidate scores should have been disclosed to applicants. The lawsuit raises questions about transparency and disclosure obligations associated with the use of automated candidate-ranking systems.
Act now
- Review and enhance your EPLI policy: Third-party Employment Practices Liability insurance (EPLI) coverage is an extension that protects companies and their employees, directors and officers against non-employee claims for alleged discrimination or harassment, brought by customers, vendors, business guests or other non-employees. Gallagher's guide to avoiding common EPLI mistakes outlines potential sources of coverage gaps and how to avoid them.
- Confirm coverage scope against benefit reductions, reductions in force (RIFs), and AI-assisted HR decisions, and audit who's named on the policy. Passive holding companies and their affiliates are often sued but may not be listed as insureds.
- Increase limits while the window is open: EPL capacity is accessible, and excess is currently competitively priced.
- Put guardrails on AI-assisted HR decisions: Require bias audits and algorithmic transparency whenever AI touches hiring, performance management or RIFs, and keep a human reviewer in the loop on every consequential decision. It's your best defense if a decision is challenged.
- Review your third-party EPLI extensions: Especially for retail, hospitality, healthcare and any client-facing operation where the Commercial General Liability exclusion leaves a gap.