A compliance practice, not a technology vendor
Greenpoint exists because the market for this work splits between Big Four engagements priced for the Fortune 500 and software that produces a dashboard nobody can defend to a regulator.
Why an independent auditor rather than a platform
Local Law 144 requires that the auditor hold no financial relationship with the employer or with the tool that would compromise independence. A company that sells you monitoring software and also audits your tool has a structural problem with that requirement, however good the software happens to be.
Greenpoint does not sell AI tooling, does not implement hiring systems, and maintains no vendor partnerships. The only product is the audit and the workpapers behind it.
Ask us the same six questions you should ask anyone else.
A report signed by a party that fails the independence test is worse than no report, because it documents that you tried and got it wrong. Here is how this practice answers.
1. Did you take any part in developing, testing, training or selling the tool you are being asked to audit?
GreenpointNo. Greenpoint does not build, sell, license, resell or implement AEDTs, applicant tracking systems or assessment platforms.
2. Who performs the disparate impact analysis, and what is their background?
GreenpointOne named person, with a compliance and regulatory testing background. The work is not handed to a subcontractor you never meet.
3. Will you publish your methodology, or only the results?
GreenpointThe methodology goes in the report, alongside the figures. If you cannot see how a number was reached, you cannot defend it.
4. Is any part of your fee tied to what the audit finds?
GreenpointNo. The fee is fixed and agreed in writing before the work starts. It does not move based on the outcome.
5. If you also sell platform or governance software, how is the audit team separated from it?
GreenpointThe question does not arise. There is no platform, no software, and no product to cross-sell.
6. Will a named individual sign the audit summary as auditor of record?
GreenpointYes. The summary is signed, and the person who signed it will answer questions about it.
Background
Greenpoint was founded by Taylor Campbell, a compliance professional with a JD and a regulatory background spanning government, financial services and technology. That work includes the Government of the District of Columbia, PGIM, Russell Investments and Mutual of Omaha.
The background matters here for a specific reason. Algorithmic accountability regimes are converging on something financial services has done for decades. Keep an inventory of covered activity, test it on a schedule, document the test, retain the workpapers, and be able to show a regulator the evidence.
The mathematics is not new either. The four-fifths guideline has been in the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines since 1978 and predates machine learning by half a century. What is new is that the obligation now attaches to employers who have never run a testing program of any kind.
Most of the difficulty is not the statistics. It is building a repeatable process that produces defensible evidence, which is the problem regulated industries solved a long time ago.
How we work
- Fixed scope and fixed price. You should know the cost before the work starts.
- Written determinations. A conclusion you cannot show to counsel is not useful to you.
- Findings delivered straight. If a tool produces a failing impact ratio, that appears in the report. The obligation is to calculate and publish, not to arrive at a comfortable number.
- No scope creep by invoice. If the work is larger than scoped, that is a conversation first.
Coverage
Based in Brooklyn, working with employers nationally. Local Law 144 coverage follows the candidate rather than the employer, so most clients are not New York companies. They are companies that hire New Yorkers.
Twenty minutes to find out where you stand.
No cost, no proposal attached, and a straight answer about whether you have an obligation.
hello@greenpointcompliance.com