Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
10,276 characters extracted
—
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
Claim No. RSC-AD-2364
Plaintiff LinRCross (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel,
hereby brings this action to obtain, among other things, a declaratory judgment that
Defendants Ridgeway County Fire Department (“Department”) and the Recruitment
Board of the Office of the Fire Chief (“Recruitment Board” and together with the
Department, “Defendants” or “Fire Department”), have deployed unreliable and
inherently prejudicial hiring methods in violation of 2 R. Stat. § 3241 (“Section
3241”). The Department’s hiring methods—enforced by the Recruitment Board—
have injured Plaintiff and will continue to injure candidates who seek employment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Under state law, the Administrative Court retains jurisdiction over “all
civil claims involving administrative action, or policy, or rules of a government
LINRCROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT; and THE
RECRUITMENT BOARD (OFFICE
OF THE FIRE CHIEF),
Defendants.
agency.” 2 R. Stat. § 3305. The claims and allegations set forth herein give rise to
review by this Court under the stated jurisdiction.
2. This court may also grant “equitable remedy necessary to ensure proper
enforcement of the law.” Id. at § 3307.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff LinRCross is a citizen of the State of Ridgeway and resident
of Ridgeway County.
4. Defendant Ridgeway County Fire Department receives state-sponsored
assistance and funding from the State government. As such, it is defined as a
“secondary agency” under the meaning of 2 R. Stat. § 3202. As a secondary agency,
the Department and its sub-branches are liable for injuries incurred in the hiring
process as a direct and proximate result of its policies and procedures.
5. Defendant Recruitment Board—including its members, agents, and
contractors—is a sub-branch of the Department, therefore falling within the scope
of 2 R. Stat. § 3204 as “staff position[s]” in a branch defined and organized under
the Department’s policy. The Recruitment Board is therefore liable for injuries
incurred in its enforcement of the Department’s hiring procedures.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6. On or about February 22, 2024, Plaintiff applied for employment to the
Ridgeway County Fire Department.
7. One day later, Azap634—a Member of the Recruitment Board—
contacted Plaintiff, informing him that while his application was adequate in quality,
it lacked desired quantity.
8. In turn, the Recruitment Board gave Plaintiff an opportunity to answer
questions in a direct-message forum between him and fellow board members; these
questions were meant to measure Plaintiff’s literacy, an unlisted requirement under
the Department’s Employment Regulations. Policy 500, Title V.
9. After answering several questions from the Recruitment Board, Board
Member 28PJ indicated his satisfaction with Plaintiff’s responses, noting “cool…he
[Plaintiff] can write.” The Recruitment Board acknowledged and accepted that
Plaintiff’s responses satisfied the Department’s standards.
10. Despite his satisfactory performance, the Recruitment Board—
operating as a sub-branch of the Department—failed Plaintiff’s application because
his responses were flagged under a department-sponsored AI detection system. As
such, the Recruitment Board reasoned that this warranted immediate rejection of
Plaintiff’s employment application.
11. The Department sets out several requirements for applicants to satisfy
for employment, including but not limited to:
a. Possession of Ridgeway Residency;
b. No felony records or present expungement proceedings;
c. Mandated 2-Factor Authorization;
d. Primary account with an age of 13 or older; and
e. Discord account with an age of 150 days or older in required servers.
Department Handbook, Policy 500-3, Title V.
12. While the ability to read and write is omitted from the Department’s
employment requirements, literacy is a factor that can be considered at the discretion
of the Recruitment Board while enforcing the Department’s procedures. As such, the
Recruitment Board was correct to weigh Plaintiff’s literacy for his application.
13. The Board was wrong, however, to deny Plaintiff’s application solely
because of scientifically unsound data. The Recruitment Board and the Fire
Department relied on inaccurate, inconclusive, and unfounded AI detection data to
make an employment decision with regard to Plaintiff’s application.
14. The Recruitment Board acknowledges and agrees that the state-
sponsored AI detection system is the only reason that Plaintiff’s employment
application was denied. Furthermore, no disclosures—public or private—were listed
by the Recruitment Board stating that the denial of Plaintiff’s application was based
on any state interest or requirement set forth by the Department’s hiring procedures.
15. Plaintiff was denied employment by the Recruitment Board and the Fire
Department, constituting an infringement of his statutory rights under state law. As
such, this Court should issue relief finding the Defendants liable for misconduct and
wanton infringement of Plaintiff’s rights.
CAUSE OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Hiring Practices)
16. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations within all prior paragraphs of this
Complaint as if they were fully set forth herein.
17. 2 R. Stat. § 3240 provides a cause of action when agencies engage in
“prejudicial or unfair hiring practices.”
18. Under that same section, state law outlines an “objective criteria” for
determining whether or not someone passes a background check. Id. at § 3233.
19. Plaintiff satisfies each of the prongs of his background check.
20. Plaintiff also satisfies all eligibility requirements set forth by the
Department. Despite meeting these requirements, the Recruitment Board denied his
application on the sole basis of unreliable data from a state-sponsored AI system.
21. The reliability of the Department’s AI-detection software falters at a
close look of studies concerning AI-detection systems. Even if the AI-detection
software used by the Department is state-sponsored, it does not change the accuracy
of its data and how it assesses textual patterns and responses.
22. In a recent study conducted by the International Journal for
Educational Integrity, researchers found that AI-detection software “do fail,” and
that they are “neither accurate nor reliable.”1
23. While the Department may use factors like poor completion of an
application during the hiring process, it may not deny an application on the sole basis
of new, unreliable AI-detection data. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s responses were noted
as satisfactory by the Recruitment Board, suggesting that his employment
application was enough to gain admission to the Department.2
24. To that end, the Recruitment Board was wrong to deny Plaintiff’s
application on the basis of AI-detection data because, in consideration of all other
factors which may be subjectively weighed by the Department, Plaintiff satisfied all
eligibility criteria to gain employment in the Department.
25. The Recruitment Board, through the Department’s policies and
procedures, weighs the factor of AI-detected content—a proven unreliable source of
information—in a negligent, unfair, and prejudicial manner against candidates who
1 See Weber-Wulff, D., et al. Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text, International
Journal for Educational Integrity. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 19, 26 (2023).
2 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that agencies may not “rest their decisions on
data that is scientifically unsound.” Nat'l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 966 F.3d
893, 934 (9th Cir. 2020). While this precedent is not binding to Ridgeway courts, it is relevant to
the issues of this case and is therefore persuasive to this matter. Accordingly, we defer to federal
precedent to weigh the soundness of the Department’s AI-detection software. Based on the findings
of the studies listed hereunder, it would be improper to deem the state-sponsored AI-detection
software as a reliable source of information regarding AI content.
seek employment with the Department. In doing so, the Recruitment Board and the
Department unlawfully denied Plaintiff’s application.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Impediation of Privileges)
26. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations within all prior paragraphs of this
Complaint as if they were fully set forth herein.
27. Plaintiff has a statutory privilege and right to be free from unfair hiring
practices, including an agency’s reliance on unreliable data as a preliminary to
employment even if the applicant satisfies all statutory and internal requirements.
28. Plaintiff easily satisfies all background checks and departmental
requirements. Furthermore, Plaintiff also passes the “objective criteria” set by state
law. As such, the Department and Recruitment Board deprived Plaintiff of his rights
by measuring his satisfactory application with the use of inherently prejudicial AI-
detection software as means for denial of his application.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, awarding
Plaintiff the following damages:
a. An order directing the Recruitment Board, acting in conjunction with the
Department, to conform to state laws governing the legality of hiring practices;
b. An injunction against Defendants from continuing to weigh unreliable and
weak AI-detection data in the application process as it is arbitrary and contrary to
state law governing hiring practices;
c. Declaratory relief that the denial of the Plaintiff’s application was contrary
to the law and a transgression of their legal rights;
d. Declaratory relief that the procedure used by the Department was
unlawful and, within the meaning of state law, prejudicial;
e. Award the Plaintiff of attorneys’ fees and costs; and
f. Such other and further relief deemed appropriate by the Court to fully
effectuate its judgment against Defendants.
Dated: February 28, 2024
Palmer, Ridgeway.
Respectfully Submitted.
/s/ S. Stickza
Stickza, Esq.
Counsel of Record
Cohn, Cicero, & Goodrich LLC
Suite 1B, Palmer Suites
Palmer, RW 27841
(111) 222-3333
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Document record
File size
231.9 KB
Uploaded
Feb 29, 2024 12:00 PM
Filed
Feb 29, 2024 12:00 PM
Filing code
ADMINISTRATIVE_APPLICATION
Uploaded by
linrcross
Notes
Administrative Complaint - LinRCross (2).pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/oIe1Zfal)
