I'd be shocked if there were any legal recourse. It isn't enough to show that the diversity of those hired doesn't match the general population, you have to show the explicit intent to discriminate.
It really isn't hard to discriminate without realizing it. Maybe you only hire from certain schools, or only hire people who list fishing as a hobby on their resume. Neither are discriminatory in a legal sense, you'd have to show that those metrics were picked specifically to act as an analog to discriminate against a protected class.
My understanding is that disparate impact is still extremely difficult to win in court and is rarely tried. Do you really think any meaningful number of cases that could technically fall under this rule are tried and won in court?
Surprise for anyone using it, unlike with people, you can actually all the AI to grade a lot of input resumes and establish th existence of a bias directly.
That makes a legal case unsurprisingly strong.
With a person, you need to find circumstantial evidence to make a case on a single such ruling.
With a company, you need to establish existence of a hiring pattern.
It really isn't hard to discriminate without realizing it. Maybe you only hire from certain schools, or only hire people who list fishing as a hobby on their resume. Neither are discriminatory in a legal sense, you'd have to show that those metrics were picked specifically to act as an analog to discriminate against a protected class.