TL;DR: California's Assembly Appropriations Committee advanced two employer-facing AI bills on August 13, 2026. SB 947 (No Robo Bosses Act) passed 10-4 and bans sole reliance on automated systems to fire or discipline workers. SB 951 (Worker Technological Displacement Act) passed 10-3 and requires 90 days advance notice before AI-driven layoffs. Both need full Assembly votes by August 31 and Newsom's signature by September 30. If signed, they take effect January 1, 2027.
Two California AI workplace bills cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 13, 2026, in the same session -- each targeting a different way employers use AI against workers, and each with teeth most HR teams haven't planned around.
SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act authored by Sen. Jerry McNerney, bans employers from relying solely on automated decision systems to fire or discipline workers, and prohibits a category of predictive profiling that most performance management software currently performs without restriction. The vote was 10-4.
SB 951, the California Worker Technological Displacement Act, extends the WARN Act's notice window from 60 to 90 days for any AI- or automation-driven layoff affecting 25 or more workers. The vote was 10-3.
Both bills now need full Assembly floor votes before the August 31 legislative deadline. If passed, they go to Governor Newsom, who has until September 30 to sign or veto. A January 1, 2027 effective date is the likely outcome if both become law.
SB 947: The No Robo Bosses Act
The core prohibition in SB 947 is simple to state and difficult to operationalize: you cannot rely solely on an automated decision system to terminate or discipline a worker. That sounds obvious until you look at how most workforce analytics software actually works.
What counts as an ADS
The bill defines an automated decision system as "any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence" that replaces human judgment by issuing scores, recommendations, or decisions that materially affect workers.
That is not a narrow definition. It covers:
- Performance management platforms that generate aggregate risk scores for employees
- Attendance monitoring systems with automatic discipline triggers
- Scheduling tools that flag shift adherence and issue warnings without manager review
- Workforce productivity tools that classify employees as low-performing based on output metrics
- Background check and verification services using ML-based scoring
The test is not whether the tool is branded as AI. The test is whether it produces a score, classification, or recommendation that influences an employment outcome -- and whether a human actually reviewed that output before acting on it.
What SB 947 prohibits beyond the solo-ADS ban
SB 947 goes further than the headline prohibition. The bill also bans:
Predictive behavior profiling. Employers cannot use ADS to predict worker behavior, beliefs, personality, emotional state, or future actions. If your productivity platform assigns psychological profiles to employees or predicts who is likely to quit or underperform, that falls under this prohibition.
Protected characteristic inference. ADS cannot be used to infer race, religion, gender, or other protected characteristics from behavioral or performance data.
Unjustified data use for compensation. Employers cannot use individualized worker data in ADS to set compensation unless they can demonstrate a direct cost differential or task relevance for the specific data being used.
What SB 947 requires when ADS is involved in discipline
When an employer uses an ADS that contributes to a disciplinary or termination decision -- even if a human also reviewed it -- the employer must:
- Complete independent corroboration of the ADS output before taking action
- Provide the worker with timely written notice in plain language that describes the ADS and data used, identifies the human reviewer responsible for the decision, and includes anti-retaliation language
- Maintain records sufficient for a worker to exercise their data request right
Workers can request their ADS-related data once per year. The Labor Commissioner enforces SB 947, public prosecutors can bring civil enforcement actions, and workers have a private right of action. Penalties are $500 per violation plus potential punitive damages and attorney's fees.
SB 951: The Worker Technological Displacement Act
SB 951 targets a gap in the current WARN Act framework: California's WARN Act requires 60 days advance notice before mass layoffs, but the trigger conditions and notice period were designed around traditional workforce reductions, not AI-driven ones.
The SB 951 trigger
SB 951 applies when an employer with 100 or more employees uses AI, automation, or technology to displace 25 or more workers or 25% of the workforce -- whichever is the smaller number. That is a notably low threshold. A company with 200 employees displacing 50 workers to automation triggers the notice requirement regardless of whether the 25% calculation would ordinarily apply.
The 90-day notice requirement also applies in a scenario most employers haven't accounted for: when a company permanently stops hiring for roles replaced by AI or automation. If you eliminate an entire job category and replace it with software or automated workflows, you must notify the affected employees and the state.
Worker protections during the notice period
During the 90-day notice window, SB 951 prohibits employers from discharging affected workers without reasonable cause. This effectively grants protected status to workers identified as being displaced by technology for the duration of the notice period.
Workers whose jobs are eliminated by AI or automation also receive a right of first bid on open positions within the company during the notice period. If there are open roles the displaced worker is qualified for, they must be offered the chance to apply and be evaluated before external candidates.
SB 951 penalties
Noncompliant employers face three categories of liability:
- Back pay and benefits for each affected worker covering the notice period that was skipped
- Civil penalties of up to $500 per day until the violation is cured
- Lawsuits from individual workers, local governments, or worker representatives
Civil penalties are directed into a Technological Displacement Act Fund, administered by the Labor Commissioner upon legislative appropriation.
The Newsom factor
Newsom vetoed SB 7 -- a previous version of this legislation -- in October 2025. His veto message said the bill imposed "unfocused notification requirements" on businesses using even routine digital tools and that it duplicated existing regulation. He also issued an executive order directing state agencies to study the impact of AI on employment rather than codifying restrictions immediately.
SB 947 is drafted more narrowly than SB 7, focusing specifically on discipline and termination decisions rather than all employment decisions. Whether that narrowing is enough to change Newsom's calculus is genuinely unclear. The bill carries AFL-CIO backing and cleared the full Senate 29-9 in May -- that margin shows broad legislative support even if the governor's office has been reluctant.
The practical answer for employers: prepare as if both bills become law. Compliance preparation -- inventorying ADS systems, updating notice templates, documenting human review processes -- is less expensive than emergency remediation in Q4 if Newsom signs in late September with a January 1 effective date.
What employers with California operations should do now
Step 1: Inventory your ADS systems. List every tool in your HR, workforce management, and performance stack that uses ML, statistical modeling, or algorithmic scoring. Include tools sold as "analytics" or "insights" platforms -- the ADS definition does not require an AI marketing label.
Step 2: Identify solely automated decision flows. For each ADS, document which employment decisions it influences and whether a human actually reviews the output before action is taken. "A manager could override it" is not the same as "a manager does review it." SB 947's human corroboration requirement means an active documented review, not a theoretical veto.
Step 3: Prepare the post-ADS written notice template. SB 947 requires plain-language written notice after any ADS use in a discipline or termination decision. Draft a template now that includes the required fields: system description, data used, human reviewer contact, anti-retaliation statement.
Step 4: Update your workforce reduction planning process. If your company could realistically automate 25 or more jobs in California within a calendar year, that scenario now requires a 90-day notice timeline under SB 951. Build the extended notice window into restructuring planning models and identify which role eliminations triggered by technology would require state agency notification.
Step 5: Document the human. For every ADS-influenced disciplinary decision you make between now and January 1, build the documentation habit: who reviewed the output, what information they considered, and what decision they made. If SB 947 passes, that documentation becomes a compliance requirement. If it doesn't pass, it's still your defense against a discrimination claim.
How SB 947 interacts with existing law
SB 947 does not replace California's existing ADMT (Automated Decision-Making Technology) consumer framework -- those rules apply to consumer-facing data uses. SB 947 is employer-focused and targets worker-directed AI.
It also sits alongside, rather than replacing, federal EEOC AI hiring guidance, NYC Local Law 144's bias audit requirements, and the federal FCRA's provisions on automated background check scoring. Employers operating in multiple jurisdictions need a coordinated AI employment compliance map that covers all of these tracks, not just the newest California bill.
The EEOC AI hiring guidance checklist covers federal expectations. The NYC Local Law 144 employer guide covers the New York bias audit requirement. The California ADMT employer compliance templates cover the consumer-facing California track. SB 947, if signed, adds a fourth layer specifically governing worker-directed ADS use.
Related Reading
- EEOC AI Hiring Guidance 2026: Employer Checklist
- NYC Local Law 144: AI Bias Audit Employer Guide
- California ADMT Employer Compliance Templates
- Workday AI Lawsuit: HR Screening Checklist for Employers
- Multi-State AI Bias Audit Requirements 2026
Sources: California SB 947 bill text, California SB 951 bill text, CA Senate approves No Robo Bosses Act, California Legislature proposes 90-day AI layoff notice, AI Legislative Update August 14 2026, Regulating AI at work: SB 951 and SB 947, Crowell Moring SB 947 analysis
