With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, the use of artificial intelligence in the field of employment, especially in recruitment, is gradually increasing. Artificial intelligence judges applications for employment of applicants and analyzes interview videos to determine emotional intelligence, communication skills, cognitive ability, and problem-solving ability. However, there is a risk of discrimination in evaluating humans in hiring by these automated decisions made by artificial intelligence. Discrimination in hiring according to gender, race, or disability is prohibited by various laws such as the Constitution, Labor Standards Act, Framework Act On Employment Policy, and Employment Security Act in Korea. In particular, the Act On The Prohibition Of Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities, Remedy Against Infringement Of Their Rights and the Act On The Employment Promotion And Vocational Rehabilitation Of Persons With Disabilities require special protection for people with disabilities. Discrimination against persons with disabilities can be divided into direct discrimination against persons with disabilities without justifiable grounds, and indirect discrimination that results in disadvantageous consequences for persons with disabilities by applying standards that do not take disabilities into account even though they are not formally treated unfavorable. When hiring according to automated decision-making, (i) intentional discrimination that intentionally sets applicants with elements of the disablity to be excluded from recruitment, (ii) making an automated decision not to hire the disabled through the existing data which prejudice against the disabled is already reflected, and (iii) if the existing data lacks or does not have information on the disabled, the data itself lacks representativeness, leading to distorted decisions, there is a risk that will be judged as discrimination for the disabled. In Korea, the Credit Information Use And Protection Act has proposed the definition of automated evaluation for owner of credit information and protection standards, but it is limited to the protection of credit information, and a recent amendment of the Personal Information Protection Act suggests protection measures from decisions made by automated systems, but it is criticized for the scope of protection being reduced than that of the GDPR. In addition, special protection measures for workers, such as the ILO’s Code of Practice for Protection of Workers’ Personal Data, are not mentioned separately, so it is necessary to devise legal protection measures in the hiring process according to automated decision-making of disabled workers.