75% of UK Jobseekers Don't Know They Can Challenge AI Rejections

Three quarters of UK jobseekers don't know they have the legal right to challenge an automated rejection. That figure comes from a Censuswide survey of 2,000 UK workers who had applied for at least one job in the past 24 months, commissioned by London non-profit People Like Us.

The group is running a campaign called Reject the Rejections, pressing employers for transparency and accountability in AI and automated recruitment. CEO Sheeraz Gulsher calls the current situation an "AI war": candidates "resorting to AI to bolster their applications" while "employers are dealing with huge amounts of applications."

What does the survey actually show?

The bias numbers are stark. 70% of ethnically diverse jobseekers told researchers they had altered or concealed information on their CVs — including country of origin, religion or name — out of fear that recruitment software or AI tools would reject them. Among white candidates, the figure was 57%.

Gulsher said: "We can't say for certain that every company is operating its automated or AI systems without bias. That's why we're calling for companies to audit these systems, publish the results and have them independently assessed."

His organisation found ICO guidance stating that people subject to certain automated decisions can request a human review. "We're trying to remind people of that right, as many simply aren't aware of it," he said.

How much do recruiters really use AI?

Less than candidates think, according to CV Library. Of 425 recruiters the firm surveyed, about 90 said they used AI at the CV screening stage.

Alec Stanwell, the company's director of marketing, sees a "perception gap". Candidates "almost universally" believe employers use AI to screen and filter applications. "That is happening but nowhere near as much as candidates think it is," he said.

The gap has consequences. Candidates now write CVs through the lens of an AI reviewer, and recruiters see applications that all look the same because "they're all written by AI, or polished by AI". That creates what Stanwell calls a "perfect storm": AI-polished volume pushes employers toward AI filtering. "We're going to end up with computers hiring computers, but we're actually in the world of hiring people," he said.

Is there evidence of AI hiring bias?

Some. Stanford researchers analysed four million job applications processed by one AI hiring tool in the four years to December 2022. Some candidates were rejected from multiple roles more often than expected under independent assessment. Black and Asian applicants were recommended for jobs at lower rates.

The evidence is limited. The study covered a single tool, and factors such as education and immigration status could have played a role. The tool's maker did not respond to requests for comment.

The courts are also engaged. Workday faces legal claims in the US alleging its tools discriminated against applicants. The case is ongoing. Workday denies the claims, says its tools do not make hiring decisions, and that they "support rather than replace human judgement".

What do jobseekers say?

Business consultant Vivi from Lewisham was made redundant earlier this year. After one application closed on a Friday, she received a Saturday-morning reply telling her to work on her skills and return in six months. "It was so obvious that nobody had assessed my skills," she said. Had she known about human review rights, she said: "I would definitely go back and ask for a human to look at my application and if it is a 'no', that's fine, but feedback helps me as a jobseeker."

Hema, 49, an HR professional from Surrey made redundant in June, has tracked more than 100 applications. "A lot of them have been automatically rejected within 24 to 36 hours," she said. "I've always landed a job in 10 applications, so to be nearing 100 is completely out of this world." She's "hesitant" to request a human review in case it jeopardises her application, but believes "a human recruiter can see the fuller picture".

Do all AI tools work the same way?

No — and that complicates scrutiny. Sapia AI grades candidates on text-based chat interviews. Founder Barb Hyman said: "We don't know anything about you from a demographic perspective and we don't know whether or not you were hired or not hired for a previous role." She argues buyers must "look at the nature of the AI and how it's built. Not all AI is the same." She also noted that every enterprise she speaks to is "very conscious" of the EU AI Act, "even if they don't see themselves as having to comply with that yet".

Her advice: "No company ever built a high-performing culture by monitoring its people, and you won't build a fair hiring process by policing candidates either. Start by earning candidates' trust: tell them what you're measuring, how they'll be scored, and give them feedback. Fraud gets smaller when people trust the process."

Can employers detect AI-written CVs?

Not reliably. Splendid Communications CEO Alec Samways said his firm usually gets 300-400 applications for three internship places, but last year saw triple that number. "Strangely, they all look the same. Our suspicion was candidates all of a sudden were using AI to make the applications themselves," he said. Two AI detection tools "produced such a variety of responses" that his team "couldn't trust them" and sifted applications manually. "We're not prepared to trust AI for this kind of decision-making," he said.

What are the regulators saying?

An ICO spokesperson said AI and automation could "make recruitment quicker and more efficient" but "must not come at the expense of people's rights". Employers, the spokesperson said, "should be upfront about when automated decision-making is being used, how it works and how it could affect someone's application". The regulator added: "Bias can appear at different stages of building and using AI products, and we expect all organisations to take steps to identify and mitigate it."

A government spokesperson said existing equality and data protection law "already apply to AI systems, and we will act where additional protections are needed".

With candidates automating applications and employers automating screening, the immediate pressure falls on audits, disclosure and the little-known right to a human review — a right most applicants still don't realise they have.