ABLEIST: Intersectional Disability Bias in LLM-Generated Hiring Scenarios

Employers are increasingly using large language models (LLMs) to automate their hiring process. This paper investigates the risk of monocultural biases, in which the widespread deployment of large language models homogenizes biases across the labor market, leading to greater systemic exclusion for certain demographic groups. For ten LLMs, we measure hiring biases across their base and post-trained versions to identify which stage, pre-training or post-training, lead to monocultural biases. We find that, compared to their base models, post-trained models are 3.6% less likely to callback older applicants. This negative shift occurs in eight of the ten models that we evaluate. Post-trained models have much more correlated decisions than base models which is likely driven by human capital traits like skills or college major. However, greater consensus among models increases global systemic exclusion rates from 5.6% to 17.3% and exacerbates demographic inequalities, with intersectional systemic exclusion rates ranging from 12.2% to 21.7% for post-trained models. We find that this inequality is primarily driven by age-based discrimination that is exacerbated in post-training. These results indicate that while post-training techniques may improve models' abilities to select the best applicants, they may raise systemic inequality risks for those at the margin by uniformly introducing new biases.

We audit fourteen mainstream large language models (LLMs) for hiring discrimination using the paired-resume methodology of Kline, Rose, and Walters (2022). The sole 2023-vintage model reproduces the pro-White callback gap documented in field experiments on labor market discrimination ($+2.12$ pp, significant at the 1% level). Every model released in 2024 or after shows either a null gap or a significant pro-Black reversal (up to $-3.01$ pp). The same pattern holds on the gender axis. Based on 24,024 paired postings per model across 14 models, our results document a reversal in the direction of algorithmic hiring bias across model generations.

Open-weight large language models are rapidly entering hiring pipelines, yet their discriminatory failure modes -- and the regulatory exposure these create under the EU AI Act high-risk classification (Annex III) and U.S. EEOC adverse-impact analysis -- remain poorly understood. We present the first systematic, multi-model audit of open-weight LLMs that treats job-posting language as the primary experimental variable, evaluating six models (Llama 3.2, Mistral, Gemma 3, Qwen 3, Phi 3, DeepSeek-R1) across four controlled experiments that jointly probe recruiter-simulation and job-seeker-simulation tasks. We find that (1) agentic posting language depresses recruiter recommendation scores for female candidates (r_rb = 0.309, p_Bonf = 7x10^-5; model-fixed-effects r_rb = 0.448), while communal language partially reverses the penalty; and (2) coded-exclusion language suppresses non-White recruiter scores at large effect sizes (r_rb = 0.646-0.758) and, on the job-seeker side, selectively deters non-White personas from expressing interest -- operationalizing a chilling-effect mechanism at scale. A label-ablation experiment isolates the explicit demographic persona label as the primary causal driver, and Word Embedding Association Tests corroborate these findings at the representational level (d = 1.01-1.45 under Caliskan et al.'s multi-word gender attribute lists). We translate these results into a concrete pre-deployment audit protocol -- posting-vocabulary scoring, persona-conditioned LLM probing, and adverse-impact flagging against the four-fifths threshold -- that operationalizes the documentation and risk-management obligations Annex III imposes on high-risk AI in recruitment.