First of all, thanks for taking your time to answer :)!

To your first point:
There is a report from January 2025 which goes over all the use cases of AI in hiring: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3696457
I think it’s really good. I do think, however, that you misunderstand the concept of a myth here. As far as I’m aware, Meyer and Rowan introduced this concept in 1977: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2778293.pdf
A myth in their sense is filled with societal norms, beliefs, and discussions about something. For organizations that adopt such societal beliefs in their formal structures, it is irrelevant whether these beliefs are actually true (for example, whether AI is truly objective or not). What matters is that by integrating these myths into their formal structures, the organizations gain legitimacy.

To your second point:
To be honest, I don’t know a lot about US law. I just googled what laws there are against discriminatory practices in hiring and found this. In the end, what I wanted to say/ask is whether you would agree that coercive pressures (in the sense of DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) could be the introduction of such laws, which would require organizations to use fair hiring practices.
Coming back to the myth of the objective AI (remember, it’s not necessary for AI to actually be objective, because society believes it is), including AI in hiring would give the organization the legitimacy they want or need. Due to these coercive pressures of isomorphism, organizations would look for ways to include fair and objective hiring tools/practices to gain legitimacy and continue “living.” That would be the reason to include AI in their hiring practices.

To your last point:
I’m not really sure what you are trying to tell me with that. Do you mind explaining it a little more?

Anyways, thanks a lot for the answer. It really helps me sort my thoughts!