On September 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 947, the bill Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross’s daily digest The Innermost Loop summed up in five words: Newsom “signed the No Robo Bosses Act.” The short version for employers: starting July 1, 2027, an algorithm can no longer be the only thing standing behind a California discipline or termination decision. A human has to check the machine’s work, the employee gets a written notice, and the employer carries the burden of proving it followed the rules. Two companion laws signed the same day go further on surveillance and AI-driven layoffs.
What the No Robo Bosses Act Means for Business
Most companies do not think of themselves as running “automated decision systems.” But the statute’s definition is broad. SB 947 adds a new Part 5.5.5 to the California Labor Code, and Section 1520 defines an ADS as any computational process “derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence” that issues a score, classification or recommendation used “to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking.” Spam filters, firewalls, calculators and plain databases are carved out. Productivity scoring, automated attendance flags, performance dashboards that rank workers, and gig-style deactivation tools are not.
Governor Newsom vetoed a broader “robo boss” bill a year earlier, which is why many employers stopped watching the issue. That pause is over. The Governor’s office described the new law as “prohibiting employers from only relying on AI when making a disciplinary action or termination decision.”
The definition of “employer” also reaches past the payroll company. It covers anyone who “directly or indirectly, or through an agent” controls a worker’s wages, hours or working conditions, plus labor contractors. If a staffing vendor or software platform makes the call for you, assume the obligation still lands on your desk.
The Legal Impact: 6 Rules in the No Robo Bosses Act and Its Companion Laws
1. No Robo Bosses: no discipline or firing on the algorithm alone
Under new Labor Code Section 1522(b), an employer “shall not rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision.” If the employer primarily relies on ADS output, it must direct a human to corroborate the decision with supporting information such as supervisor evaluations, personnel files, work product, peer reviews or witness interviews. If the reviewer cannot corroborate the output, or concludes it is “inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading,” the output cannot be used. Read the full text of SB 947 (Chapter 859).
2. Three uses are off-limits entirely
An employer may not use an ADS to violate labor, safety, employment or civil rights laws; to infer an employee’s protected status under the Fair Employment and Housing Act; or to “predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights.” That last one targets tools that flag likely organizers, complainers or leave-takers.
3. A written post-use notice, delivered with the decision
Section 1524 requires a stand-alone, plain-language notice at the time the employee is told of the decision. It must say an ADS was primarily relied on, that a human reviewed and corroborated it, who to contact, and that retaliation is prohibited. Employees can also request a description of their own data the system used.
4. The burden of proof flips to the employer
Once a worker shows an ADS was used, Section 1526.1(c) requires the employer to prove it did not primarily rely on the system, or that it followed the corroboration and notice rules. Enforcement runs through the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors, with a $500 civil penalty per violation and, in a civil action, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
5. No emotion-reading or neural-data surveillance
AB 1883 (Chapter 853) bars any AI-powered workplace surveillance tool used to recognize or predict an employee’s emotional state or to collect neural data. Safety monitoring remains permitted. Penalties run up to $500 per violation. The bill sets no special start date, so under the California Constitution’s default rule it takes effect January 1, 2027. A companion bill, AB 1331, bans surveillance tools in workplace bathrooms.
6. AI-driven layoffs must say so
SB 951 (Chapter 860) amends the California WARN Act. When a mass layoff, relocation or termination at a site with 75 or more employees is caused “in whole or in substantial part” by AI or other automation, the 60-day notice must list the affected positions, the job functions being automated, the type of technology, and carry the line “This notice is for a technology displacement” at the top. The Employment Development Department will publish summaries, so these notices will be public.
Two honest caveats. First, neither the No Robo Bosses Act nor its companion laws has been interpreted by a court or the Labor Commissioner yet, and terms like “primarily relies” will be argued over. Second, how far they reach employers based outside California with California remote workers is a fact-specific question. If you have people working in the state, plan as if you are covered.
What Howard East Clients Should Do Now
- Inventory your tools. List every system that scores, ranks, flags or recommends action on employees, including features buried inside HR, scheduling and timekeeping software.
- Write the human-review step down. Build a corroboration checklist for discipline and termination, and keep the file. The burden shift means undocumented review is the same as no review.
- Draft the post-use notice template now, and train managers on when it goes out.
- Ask vendors hard questions. Does the product infer emotion? Collect biometric or neural signals? Update contracts so the vendor discloses functionality and supports your compliance. Our post on smart glasses in the workplace covers the related policy questions.
- Coordinate with your other states. Illinois has its own rules, covered in our guide to AI employment decisions in Illinois. Cannabis operators should fold all of this into their cannabis employee handbook.
- Before any automation-driven reduction in force, review Cal-WARN timing and the new notice content with counsel. If a termination is already being challenged, our affiliated litigation team at Howard Law Group handles disputes.
For broader context on AI and staffing risk, see our posts on workplace robot liability and employment contract disputes.
Talk to Howard East About AI in Your Workplace
Howard East helps employers audit AI tools, build No Robo Bosses review procedures and update handbooks and vendor contracts before the July 1, 2027 deadline arrives. Book a consultation with our employment law team.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
