California employers will be barred from relying solely on automated decision systems to discipline or fire workers beginning July 1, 2027, under a new law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Employers that primarily base those decisions on software output will have to obtain human corroboration and give affected employees written notice.

Newsom approved SB 947, authored by Senator Jerry McNerney, on September 30, 2026. The law adds workplace automation provisions to the California Labor Code, with enforcement powers for the state Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors and a civil penalty of $500 per violation.

The measure does not prohibit employers from using artificial intelligence in personnel management. Instead, it distinguishes between decisions made entirely through automated systems, which are prohibited for discipline and termination, and decisions that primarily depend on those systems, which require additional safeguards.

When an employer primarily relies on automated output, a human must corroborate the decision using the underlying data or other relevant evidence. Supporting material can include managerial evaluations, personnel records, employees’ work, peer reviews and witness interviews, including relevant online customer reviews. If the output cannot be corroborated, or the reviewer finds it inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the employer cannot use it to make the disciplinary or termination decision.

The law’s definition of an automated decision system extends beyond products marketed as AI. It covers computational processes using machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or artificial intelligence that produce scores, classifications, recommendations or similar outputs used to assist or replace human judgment and materially affect people. Ordinary tools such as calculators, databases, spam filters and cybersecurity software are excluded.

Employees must receive a separate, plain-language written notice when they are informed of a disciplinary or termination decision that primarily relied on an automated system. The notice must disclose that reliance, confirm human review and corroboration, and identify a human contact who can answer questions about the decision and the employee’s information rights. It must also explain the prohibition on retaliation.

Affected employees can request a meaningful, objective description of their own data used by the system. Employers must provide that description while anonymizing personal information belonging to customers, colleagues or other individuals. The statute protects employees who exercise these rights, complain to the Labor Commissioner or cooperate with an investigation.

Separate restrictions apply more broadly than firing and discipline. Employers may not use automated systems to violate labor, employment, health and safety or civil rights laws, infer an employee’s protected status, or predict and take adverse action against workers for exercising legal rights.

The law covers private employers and a wide range of public bodies, including state agencies, local governments, school districts and the California State University. Coverage of the University of California depends on agreement by its regents. Labor contractors are also included.

Several boundaries remain important. The statute does not define when an employer’s reliance becomes “primary.” Its human-corroboration and notice requirements address disciplinary and termination decisions, not hiring, and it does not require advance notice before a system is deployed. Obligations fall on employers rather than software developers, with no separate vendor documentation, bias-audit or impact-assessment requirement.

The Labor Commissioner can investigate violations, issue citations, bring civil actions and order temporary relief while proceedings are pending. A burden-of-proof provision requires employers, once covered automated use is demonstrated, to establish either that they did not primarily rely on the system or that they complied with the corroboration and notice requirements. That provision uses the term “deactivation” rather than “termination,” leaving its application to app-based workers unclear.

Sources: PPC Land