Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

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

Administrative_Complaint_-_LinRCross_(2).pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record