iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
California’s No Robo Bosses Act is enacted, but its requirements do not become operative until July 1, 2027. It regulates defined automated decision systems (ADS) used by employers. For discipline and termination, employers cannot rely solely on an ADS; primary reliance also triggers human corroboration, a written notice when the decision is communicated, and a right for the employee to request a description of their own data used by the system. The enacted provisions do not give hiring decisions that same package of notice, corroboration, and data-description rights.
When does the Act take effect?
SB 947, formally titled “Employment: automated decision systems” and publicly known as the No Robo Bosses Act, was approved and chaptered as Chapter 859 of the Statutes of 2026 on September 30, 2026. Its operative date is July 1, 2027. The distinction matters: enactment is complete, but the Act’s requirements are not operative before that date.
The controlling text is California SB 947, Chapter 859. The California Legislature’s bill-status record documents its enactment. No implementation guidance, templates, or enforcement practice for this new Act is established here, so employers should check for developments as the operative date approaches.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What counts as an automated decision system?
Labor Code section 1520 defines an ADS as a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that produces a simplified output—such as a score, classification, or recommendation—to assist or replace human discretionary decision-making, and that materially impacts natural persons.
#1 Best Overall
The definition is about both the system’s output and its role in a consequential decision. An algorithm that generates a score for a manager to consider may qualify; the fact that a person makes the final call does not by itself take the system outside the definition.
The statute lists exclusions, including spam filters, firewalls, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculators, databases, datasets, and other compilations of data. A tool’s label alone is not decisive: assess what it does, what output it produces, and how that output is used.
How does the Act treat hiring differently from discipline and termination?
The difference turns on the particular provisions, not on a general exemption for hiring. The Act defines ADS and bars certain purposes of use broadly. But its restrictions on sole reliance, human corroboration, an employee’s data-description request, and a postuse notice are expressly framed around disciplinary and termination decisions. The enacted text does not establish a general AI hiring notice or appeal right.
| Decision or use | What the Act says | Employee-facing process in these provisions |
|---|---|---|
| Hiring | The ADS definition and prohibitions on specified unlawful or retaliatory purposes apply. The discipline-and-termination provisions on sole reliance and corroboration are not stated as hiring requirements. | No general AI hiring notice, corroboration, or data-description right is established by the provisions described here. |
| Discipline or termination; ADS used but not primarily relied on | The employer may not rely solely on an ADS for the decision. The specific corroboration and postuse-notice duties described in the Act are triggered by primary reliance. | The primary-reliance notice and data-description provisions do not apply on the basis of use alone. |
| Discipline or termination; employer primarily relies on ADS output | A human must corroborate the decision using the output’s underlying data or other relevant support. If the output cannot be corroborated, or the reviewer finds it inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer cannot use that output for the decision. | The employer must provide a written postuse notice when it communicates the decision. The employee may also request a meaningful, objective description of their own data used by the ADS. |
This distinction is limited to the Act’s provisions described above. It does not mean that AI-assisted hiring or other workplace uses are free of requirements under other applicable laws.
What uses of an ADS does the Act prohibit?
An employer may not use an ADS to:
- Violate or prevent compliance with federal, state, or local labor, occupational-safety, employment, or civil-rights rules.
- Infer an employee’s protected status under Government Code section 12940.
- Predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising legal rights.
These are restrictions on the purpose and effect of the use, not merely on whether a human takes part. They are relevant beyond the discipline-and-termination procedures and should be considered when evaluating hiring and other workplace applications too.
What must an employer do before relying primarily on an ADS for discipline or termination?
Have a human corroborate the decision
If the employer primarily relies on ADS output for discipline or termination, it must direct a human to corroborate the decision. The reviewer must use the data used to produce the output or other relevant supporting information. The statute gives examples of supporting information: supervisory or managerial evaluations, personnel files, employee work product, peer reviews, and witness interviews, which may include relevant online customer reviews.
Rank #3
Corroboration is a real constraint, not a formality. If the reviewer cannot corroborate the output, or concludes that it is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer cannot use that output for the decision. The Act does not specify a single review method or require the listed examples in every case; the appropriate supporting information depends on the decision and the evidence available.
Recommended Free Tools
Provide a postuse notice with the decision
When an employer primarily relied on an ADS for discipline or termination, it must provide the affected employee a written postuse notice at the same time it communicates the decision. The notice must be a separate, stand-alone communication in plain language and in the language used for routine employee communications. It must be sent by an easy method, such as email, hyperlink, or another written format.
The notice must explain that the employer primarily relied on an ADS, state that a human reviewed and corroborated the decision, give contact information for a human, describe the employee’s data-description right, and state the protection against retaliation. The timing is tied to communicating the decision; it is not a notice to provide only if the employee later asks.
Respond to a request for the employee’s own data description
An employee may request a meaningful, objective description of the employee’s own data used by the ADS when the employer primarily used the system for discipline or termination. The description must protect other people’s privacy by anonymizing personal information about customers, other employees, or individuals. This is a description of the employee’s data used by the system, not a stated right in these provisions to obtain the system’s source code or every underlying record.
What should employers review before July 1, 2027?
A practical review should connect each system to the decisions it informs and how much weight its output carries. The Act makes the distinction between any use, primary reliance, and sole reliance consequential, so a general inventory of “AI tools” is not enough.
- Map systems to decisions. Identify tools that generate scores, classifications, or recommendations with material effects on people. Record whether they are used for hiring, discipline, termination, or another workplace decision.
- Document reliance. For discipline and termination workflows, determine whether an ADS is merely one input, is primarily relied on, or is effectively the sole basis. Keep a record of the human decision process and supporting information.
- Establish a corroboration process. Identify who will review decisions involving primary ADS reliance and what relevant evidence they can consult. Define how reviewers will handle output they cannot corroborate or find inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading.
- Prepare the employee-facing process. Plan a separate, plain-language written notice delivered with the decision, with the required information and in the language used for routine employee communications. Set up a way to handle requests for a data description while protecting other people’s personal information.
- Check purpose and applicable rules. Review whether a system could be used to infer protected status, enable noncompliance, or predict and penalize exercise of legal rights. Also identify applicable local ordinances and privacy obligations.
These steps help translate the statutory duties into workflows; they do not replace an assessment of the facts, other applicable law, or later agency guidance.
Best Value
Are there exceptions or other laws to consider?
- More protective local rules: The Act does not preempt a more protective ordinance adopted by a California city, county, or city and county.
- Collective bargaining agreements: A qualifying agreement takes covered parties outside the Act only if it expressly waives the Act in clear and unambiguous terms, expressly provides for wages or earnings, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of work, and protects against algorithmic management. A general reference to technology or workplace flexibility is not the stated test.
- Limited federal-work exception: A narrow exception applies to ADS use required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, regulation, or binding federal contract concerning aircraft development for the national airspace or development of national-security, military, space, or defense products or services. It applies only to the covered operations.
- California privacy rules: Employers subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act remain subject to privacy-related automated decisionmaking technology regulations duly adopted by the California Privacy Protection Agency. The Act’s rule against duplicative notice does not override that provision.
Each exception is conditional. Its presence should not be read as a general carve-out for an industry, contract, or employer.
Who enforces the Act, and what are the consequences?
The Labor Commissioner may investigate, order temporary relief, issue citations, and file civil actions. Public prosecutors may also enforce the Act. The statute sets a civil penalty of $500 per violation and permits specified court relief, including temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. Employers may not retaliate against workers for asserting rights under the Act.
SB 947, Chapter 859, is the primary source for the statutory requirements discussed here; the Legislature’s status record confirms the bill’s enactment. Because the Act is not operative until July 1, 2027, and implementation materials are not established here, employers should verify the current statute and any later official guidance before relying on a compliance interpretation.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
