California employers will face new restrictions on using automated systems to discipline or dismiss workers under a law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2026. The No Robo Bosses Act bars employers from basing those decisions entirely on automated output and requires human corroboration when that output is the primary basis for an action.
Senate Bill 947 takes effect July 1, 2027, adding rules for workplace automated decision systems to the California Labor Code. It follows Newsom’s 2025 veto of a broader predecessor and establishes requirements for employee notices, access to information and enforcement.
The law reaches beyond generative AI tools. Its definition of an automated decision system covers computational processes using machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or AI to produce scores, classifications or recommendations that assist or replace human judgment and materially affect people. Productivity ratings, attendance analysis and performance-tracking systems could therefore fall within its scope, depending on how employers use them.
Ordinary software infrastructure, including spam filters, firewalls, antivirus programs, calculators, databases and datasets, is expressly excluded. Covered employers include public entities, labor contractors and farm labor contractors.
The central requirement distinguishes between exclusive and primary reliance on automation. Employers cannot use an automated decision system as the sole basis for discipline or termination. When they rely primarily on a system’s output, they must have a person corroborate the decision using the underlying data or other relevant supporting information. That material may include supervisory evaluations, personnel records, work product, peer reviews or witness interviews.
The act also prohibits using automated systems to obstruct compliance with applicable laws. Employers cannot use the technology to predict or take adverse action against workers for exercising legal rights, including rights protected by state and federal labor law.
Employees disciplined or dismissed primarily on the basis of automated output will be entitled to request a meaningful, objective description of their own data used by the system. Employers must anonymize personal information belonging to customers, colleagues and other individuals when providing that description.
A separate notice requirement applies when automation is the primary basis for discipline or termination. Employers must provide a written notice when communicating the decision to the worker. The notice must stand alone, use plain language and be delivered in the language ordinarily used for workplace communications through a simple method, such as email or a hyperlink. The obligation does not extend to every personnel decision that involves an automated tool.
Enforcement rests with the labor commissioner and public prosecutors rather than a new standalone private right of action. The labor commissioner may investigate, order temporary relief, issue citations and bring civil actions. Violations carry a $500 civil penalty each. Public prosecutors can pursue civil enforcement, including injunctive relief, punitive damages and reasonable legal fees and costs.
The law also shifts the evidentiary burden once use of an automated system in a disciplinary or termination decision is established. Employers must then demonstrate either that they did not primarily rely on the system or that they satisfied the human-review and notice requirements. Whether employees can pursue violations through California’s Private Attorneys General Act remains a potential litigation issue.
Compliance with SB 947’s notice rules satisfies substantially similar automated-decision notice requirements under other state laws, but that protection has limits. It does not cover warehouse quotas or other automated working-condition standards, and it does not remove obligations under the California Privacy Protection Agency’s automated decision-making regulations. Employers preparing for July 2027 will need to examine not only which tools they use, but how managers rely on their output when making disciplinary decisions.
Sources: National Law Review – AI