No firing on AI alone: the four lines California drew around workplace AI

🚪Firing and discipline (SB 947)#

A human has to check again

SB 947 bars employers from relying solely on an automated decision system (ADS) to discipline or fire workers. If the system's output was the primary basis for a decision, a human must review that output again using other information.

Tell the worker and explain#

Written notice, data explanation, no retaliation

Employers must also tell the affected worker in writing that the system was used. Workers can ask for an explanation of their own data used in the decision, and the employer must provide it. Firing or otherwise penalizing workers for exercising these rights is also prohibited.

In effect from July 1, 2027#

$500 per violation

The law takes effect on July 1, 2027. It is enforced by the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors, with a civil penalty of $500 per violation. Workplaces covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly waives these provisions are exempt.

A scope narrowed once#

A 2025 veto, rideshare drivers left out

This law was narrowed once. Newsom vetoed an earlier bill in 2025, and this time he signed the narrower SB 947. State Senator Jerry McNerney, who introduced the bill, said that nobody wants to be fired by a machine. Rideshare drivers, who are classified as independent contractors under Proposition 22, are excluded from its protections.

👁️Surveillance (AB 1883, AB 1331)#

No looking into emotions, brain signals or restrooms

The Guardian pointed to heat maps that record workers' movements and even how long they spend in the restroom as the kind of practice these laws target. It also described a Kaiser Permanente case in which an automated system rated the tone of voice nurses used when talking with patients.

Emotions and neural data (AB 1883)#

Public agencies count as employers

AB 1883 prohibits using AI-powered workplace surveillance tools to infer workers' emotional states or collect neural data. Employers here include public bodies such as state and local governments and the University of California (UC).

AB 1883 enforcement and exemptions#

Up to $500, defense and space work excluded

The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce it, with penalties of up to $500 per violation. Work in aircraft development, national security, defense and space that must follow federal law or federal contracts is exempt.

No restroom surveillance (AB 1331)#

The right to leave monitoring devices outside

AB 1331 prohibits monitoring or watching workers in workplace restrooms. It also guarantees workers the right to leave wearable monitoring devices behind when they go into a restroom. Enforcement and the penalty cap are the same as for AB 1883 (up to $500 per violation).

📨Layoff notices (SB 951)#

If AI replaced the jobs, the notice says so

SB 951 adds items to the notice. If a layoff results wholly or substantially from jobs being replaced by AI or automation technology, the notice must include information such as which job functions are being automated.

The existing layoff notice law (Cal/WARN)#

75 or more employees, 60 days' notice

California's existing mass layoff notice law (Cal/WARN) requires workplaces with 75 or more employees to give written notice 60 days in advance to workers, the state Employment Development Department (EDD) and local officials before a mass layoff, relocation or closure. Failing to give notice carries a penalty of up to $500 per day.

The EDD compiles and publishes#

Technology displacement, every quarter

The EDD summarizes the notices it receives and posts them on its website, and it publishes statewide figures on technology displacement every quarter. By January 1, 2028, it must report to the Legislature on how AI has affected hiring at companies.

🩺Healthcare (AB 1979)#

AI stays in a supporting role

AB 1979, signed the same day, bars healthcare providers from using AI to replace the clinical judgment of licensed professionals. It limits AI to an advisory role and extends medical confidentiality protections to health advice chatbots. The California Nurses Association welcomed its passage.

🔍The gap that remains#

Workers cannot sue on their own

These laws have limits. Robin Feldman, director of the AI Law & Innovation Institute at UC Law San Francisco, pointed out that workers cannot bring lawsuits themselves and that only the government can enforce the laws.

The AI disclosure bill that died#

Shelved in the Assembly Appropriations Committee

A bill that labor groups had also pushed, which would have required employers to disclose that they use AI in the workplace, died in the state Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2026.

Pushback from employers#

Ten gates for every tool

Employers' views are mixed. Danielle Ochs of the employment law firm Ogletree Deakins said the laws do have real effect, but argued that making every tool pass through ten separate gates is out of step with reality. Opponents worry that helpful tools, such as AI that keeps truck drivers from dozing off, could be blocked as well.

Workplace AI laws in other states#

Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Texas

Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas have also recently passed laws dealing with AI in the workplace, but their scope is narrower than California's.