The Advancing Skills-Based Hiring Act of 2025 directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to establish a voluntary program that lets employers submit validation evidence for competency-based assessments and other selection procedures for agency review. The bill requires the Commission to specify what validity evidence to submit (criterion-related, content, construct, or transportability studies), to review submissions, and to either issue a determination that the method is job-related and consistent with business necessity or provide technical assistance explaining what is missing.
The statute creates a limited 'safe harbor'—an EEOC determination can be used by an employer to meet its burden under section 703(k)(1)(A)(i) of Title VII—but it stops short of creating statutory immunity. Employers with more than 100 employees must pay a Commission-determined fee to obtain a review; submissions and the Commission's technical assistance are shielded from being used against the employer in enforcement actions or admitted in court without employer consent.
The Act also directs the EEOC to provide education and technical assistance on validation methods and takes effect 90 days after enactment.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the EEOC to set up a voluntary process for employers to submit validity evidence for competency-based assessments and other selection procedures and to review that evidence. The Commission must either find the use job-related and consistent with business necessity or give technical assistance on what needs fixing.
Who It Affects
Employers using or planning to use competency-based assessments or other professionally developed selection procedures, psychometric vendors and validation consultants, HR and legal teams at medium and large employers, and the EEOC's compliance and technical assistance operations.
Why It Matters
It offers employers a way to get agency feedback and a paper trail to support the Title VII business-necessity defense, potentially reducing litigation risk and encouraging skills-based hiring; it also raises questions about transparency, EEOC capacity, and the legal effect of agency determinations outside court.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act creates a voluntary, front-end option for employers who rely on tests or other selection procedures to seek EEOC assessment of the underlying validation evidence. Employers would gather the validation work—one of the named study types or a transportability package showing job similarity—and submit it through a process the EEOC must design.
The statute requires the agency to publish what evidence it expects, which pushes employers and vendors toward common validation practices but leaves the operational details (formats, submission portal, timelines) to the Commission.
When the EEOC reviews a submission, it has two pathways: issue a determination that the employer’s use is job-related and consistent with business necessity, or provide technical assistance explaining why the submission falls short and what corrective steps could allow a future determination. The bill expressly allows employers to seek review regardless of whether an adverse impact exists, but asks them to include any available adverse-impact information.
That means employers can proactively validate tests instead of reacting to discrimination charges.The statute attaches a legal consequence to a favorable EEOC determination: the agency’s finding can be used by the employer to satisfy its burden under section 703(k)(1)(A)(i) of Title VII. The Act also contains a confidentiality-like protection: submissions and the Commission’s technical assistance cannot be used against the employer as the basis for EEOC enforcement and are inadmissible in court without the employer’s consent.
These rules aim to make employers more willing to participate, but they also narrow the information available to plaintiffs and to outside scrutiny.Operationally, the bill places a modest cost and structural burden on the EEOC and participating employers. Employers with more than 100 employees must pay a fee set by the Commission to offset review costs; the bill does not define the fee amount or processing timelines.
The Act also directs the EEOC to provide educational materials and technical assistance on validation methods, which could broaden awareness of accepted psychometric practices and increase use of skills-based hiring across industries.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The EEOC must accept voluntary submissions of validity evidence for competency-based assessments and other professionally developed selection procedures and may review them even when no adverse impact has been alleged, provided the employer supplies any available adverse-impact data.
Acceptable evidence the bill lists includes criterion-related, content, construct, and transportability studies (the latter must include an external study plus employer evidence of job similarity).
If the EEOC determines the assessment is job-related and consistent with business necessity, that determination can be used by the employer to satisfy its burden under 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i) (Title VII's business necessity standard).
Employers with more than 100 employees must pay a Commission-determined fee to obtain a review; the Act leaves the fee amount and fee structure to the EEOC to set.
Information submitted and technical assistance provided under the program cannot be used by the EEOC as a basis for future enforcement against that employer and is inadmissible in federal or state court without the employer's consent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
States the Act's name: the 'Advancing Skills-Based Hiring Act of 2025.' This has no operative effect but signals the bill's focus on skills-based, competency-oriented selection tools.
Purpose
Sets two declarative goals: to encourage employers to adopt skills-based hiring through a voluntary EEOC compliance assistance program, and to enable employers to submit validation information so the EEOC can evaluate job-relatedness and business necessity under Title VII. The language frames the program as voluntary and assistance-focused rather than mandatory regulation.
Voluntary submission process and required evidence
Directs the EEOC to create a submission process that allows employers to provide validity evidence for competency-based assessments and other professional selection procedures, naming four types of validation studies the agency should accept: criterion-related, content, construct, and transportability (which combines external study results with employer evidence of job similarity). The practical implication is that vendors and employers will need to align validation reports to one of these study types to fit the program's expectations.
Review, determinations, and safe harbor effect
Requires the EEOC to review submissions (subject to the fee in subsection (d)), then either find the assessment job-related and consistent with business necessity or provide technical assistance describing deficiencies and corrective steps. A favorable EEOC determination can be used by an employer to meet its burden under the statutory standard in Title VII, creating a defined evidentiary benefit but not an explicit statutory immunity from suit. That narrows litigation risk by strengthening an employer's initial defense posture while leaving other legal avenues intact.
Fee for larger employers and limits on use of submissions
Imposes a fee requirement for employers with more than 100 employees; the EEOC must set a 'reasonable fee' to offset review costs. The section also bars the EEOC from using an employer’s submission or its own technical assistance as a basis for enforcement against that employer and renders them inadmissible in court without the employer’s consent. Those protections are designed to encourage participation but create questions about transparency and discoverability in future litigation.
Education, definition, and effective date
Directs the EEOC to provide education and technical assistance on test validation methods and the voluntary submission option, defines 'competency-based assessment' to cover measures of KSAs and behavioral traits that predict job performance, and sets the Act’s effective date at 90 days post-enactment. The education mandate signals the agency should resource outreach and guidance development alongside any administrative portal.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employers seeking clarity on assessments: Employers that deploy competency-based assessments gain a structured way to get EEOC feedback and a formal agency determination they can use to shore up a Title VII defense, reducing litigation uncertainty.
- HR and compliance teams at medium/large employers: Compliance and talent teams receive clearer validation expectations, potentially simplifying vendor contracts and internal validation projects.
- Assessment vendors and validation consultants: Vendors that produce criterion-related, content, construct, or transportability studies gain demand for standardized validation packages and clearer market signals about acceptable evidence.
- Job candidates with nontraditional backgrounds: If the program encourages valid, skills-based selection procedures, candidates without traditional credentials may access more predictable, performance-based hiring practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers with >100 employees: These employers face a new, Commission-determined fee for review and the administrative cost of assembling validation evidence and paying consultants to produce studies that meet EEOC expectations.
- Assessment vendors and small employers doing validation work: Vendors will bear the cost of producing compliant validation studies; small employers that wish to participate still need to assemble evidence even if they avoid the fee, which may be resource-intensive.
- EEOC resources and staffing: The Commission must develop the submission process, review protocols, guidance, and educational materials—work that requires staff time and expertise and may be only partially offset by fees.
- Plaintiffs and civil-rights advocates: The inadmissibility and non-use protections limit access to information that could otherwise support enforcement or private litigation, potentially increasing discovery barriers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade-off is between lowering litigation risk to spur employer adoption of skills-based hiring (through confidential, favorable agency determinations and a fee-funded review process) and preserving enforcement transparency and plaintiffs’ access to evidence; encouraging voluntary compliance may come at the cost of reduced oversight and discoverability.
The Act trades off transparency for participation. By insulating submissions and technical assistance from use in enforcement and from admissibility in courts without employer consent, the bill reduces the risk employers face from voluntary disclosure—but it also reduces the evidentiary pool available to plaintiffs and the public for assessing whether certain tests produce disparate impacts.
That creates a tension between encouraging proactive validation and preserving enforceability and oversight.
The statute leaves key operational choices to the EEOC: what constitutes a 'reasonable' fee, the format and timing of reviews, the level of detail the Commission will require in transportability packages, and whether the agency will publish aggregate findings or exemplars. Those omissions create implementation risk: if fees are set too high or review timelines too long, participation could be limited to well-resourced firms; if the EEOC lacks sufficient trained psychometric staff, review quality and consistency may suffer.
Finally, the legal effect of an EEOC determination is bounded: the bill allows an employer to use the finding to satisfy its Title VII burden, but the Act does not state whether courts must afford deference to the Commission's determination or whether it precludes other claims under state law or different federal theories.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.