California now answers two questions workers ask about AI at work: who makes the call when a machine flags you for discipline, and who has to say so when a machine takes your job. On September 30, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act, and SB 951, which adds AI disclosures to California’s layoff-notice law. His office framed the package plainly: “AI should expand opportunity – not come at the expense of workers and families.”
Our position is that SB 947 is the stronger instrument, because it puts a named human between an algorithm’s output and a firing and lets that human refuse the output. SB 951 is the weaker one. It labels AI layoffs once they happen, but the enacted text dropped the provision that would have tracked the bigger shift: jobs that AI quietly stops being posted at all. That reading would weaken if the Employment Development Department’s quarterly summaries show a meaningful volume of technology-displacement notices, or if its 2028 report leads lawmakers to adopt a hiring-cessation notice.
SB 947 makes a human corroborate before AI can end a job
The core rule in SB 947 is short. An employer “shall not rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision.” When an employer primarily relies on an automated decision system output, it must direct a human to corroborate the decision using the underlying data or other evidence, such as supervisor evaluations, personnel files, work product, peer reviews, or witness interviews. If the employer can’t corroborate the output, or the reviewer concludes it’s “inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading,” the employer can’t use it to discipline or fire anyone.
That last clause is what makes this governance rather than a rubber stamp. The reviewer isn’t only asked to look; the law tells the employer what happens when the reviewer says no. The employee then gets a stand-alone, plain-language postuse notice saying an ADS was primarily relied upon, that a human reviewed and corroborated it, and who to contact. The worker can also request “a meaningful, objective description” of their own data the system used.
Enforcement has teeth in one place most AI laws skip. Once a worker shows an ADS was used, the burden shifts, and the employer must show it didn’t primarily rely on the system or that it followed the corroboration and notice rules. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors can enforce, the civil penalty is $500 per violation, and the part becomes operative July 1, 2027. It also bars using an ADS to infer a worker’s protected status or to predict and punish workers for exercising legal rights.
Where SB 947 leaves room to drift
The law turns on the word “primarily,” and the text doesn’t define it. An employer that describes the algorithm as one input among several may argue the corroboration and notice duties never applied, which puts pressure on the burden-shifting clause to do the real work. A collective bargaining agreement can waive the part if it does so “in clear and unambiguous terms” and provides protection from algorithmic management. Federal aviation and defense work is carved out where an ADS is required or reasonably necessary under federal rules.
The quality of the human reviewer is the other gap. The statute requires a human to corroborate, but it sets no standard for what that person must know or how long they get. A manager who signs off on every flag in thirty seconds technically complies. That’s why the HEQ/AIS work treats governance competence as something to measure, not assume: a checkpoint is only as strong as the person who can actually reject the machine.
SB 951 labels AI layoffs but drops the hiring signal
SB 951 amends Cal/WARN, which already requires 60 days’ written notice before a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at an establishment with 75 or more employees. When that event is “caused in whole or in substantial part” by AI or other automated technology, the notice must add the number, occupation, and location of affected layoffs, the job functions that will be automated, and the category of technology involved. It must also open with the sentence “This notice is for a technology displacement.” The Employment Development Department will publish a summary of these notices and a quarterly statewide summary.
Compare that with the April 22, 2026 amended version. That draft required “at least a 90-day advanced written notice” before a technological displacement affecting 25 or more workers or 25 percent of the workforce, whichever is less. It also required a “technology hiring disruption notice” when an employer stops hiring for a role because of AI. The enacted law keeps the 60-day Cal/WARN clock and its existing thresholds, and it turns the hiring piece into a study. By January 1, 2028, the department must report on AI’s effects on hiring, including recommendations on a possible notice for “technological cessation in hiring,” and that report provision repeals itself on January 1, 2029.
This is the gap that matters for the future of work. A labor market can absorb AI without mass layoffs and still close the door on entry-level roles that never get posted again. SB 951 now counts the visible exits and leaves the invisible ones to a report. The employer also decides whether AI was a “substantial part” of the cause, so the label depends on candor.
What employers and Responsible AI teams should build now
The Growth OS argues that AI should be positioned as capability amplification rather than labor replacement, with trust and transparency as a pillar you can measure. These two laws make that pillar a compliance line item. Three moves follow.
First, build the corroboration file before July 2027. For every discipline or termination workflow that touches an ADS, document which evidence a reviewer must check, who the reviewer is, and how a rejection is recorded. The measure is the reviewer rejection rate: a rate of zero across hundreds of flags is a signal the human isn’t really deciding.
Second, write the technology-displacement test now. Decide in advance how the organization will judge “substantial part,” who signs that judgment, and what record supports it. The measure is the share of workforce reductions with a written AI-cause determination, whether the answer is yes or no.
Third, track the hiring signal the law left out. Count roles that stopped being posted after an AI deployment and report them internally each quarter. That number is what EDD will be studying, and organizations that can show it will be ready if the 2028 report becomes a rule.
The next markers are fixed. SB 947 becomes operative July 1, 2027, the first EDD quarterly summaries will show whether employers actually use the technology-displacement label, and the January 2028 report will decide whether California counts the jobs AI never posts. The state has required a human who can say no; the harder test is whether anyone measures how often they do.
Sources
- California Legislature. (2026). Senate Bill No. 947, Chapter 859: Employment: automated decision systems [Chaptered bill]. https://ct35.capitoltrack.com/25/bill/ViewDoc?doc=%2F%2Fsen%2Fsb_0901-0950%2Fsb_947_89_C_bill.pdf
- California Legislature. (2026). Senate Bill No. 951, Chapter 860: Employment: technological displacement: notice [Chaptered bill]. https://ct35.capitoltrack.com/25/bill/ViewDoc?doc=%2F%2Fsen%2Fsb_0951-1000%2Fsb_951_89_C_bill.pdf
- California Legislature. (2026, April 22). Senate Bill No. 951 (amended in Senate) [Bill text]. https://ct35.capitoltrack.com/25/bill/ViewDoc?doc=%2F%2Fsen%2Fsb_0951-1000%2Fsb_951_96_A_bill.atl
- Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. (2026, September 30). California’s nation-leading AI framework just got stronger, Governor Newsom signs more first-in-the-nation worker protections and more [Press release]. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/30/californias-nation-leading-ai-framework-just-got-stronger-governor-newsom-signs-more-first-in-the-nation-worker-protections-and-more/
- Office of Senator Jerry McNerney. (2026, August 31). Legislature approves No Robo Bosses Act of 2026 to ensure human oversight of AI in the workplace [Press release]. https://sd05.senate.ca.gov/news/legislature-approves-no-robo-bosses-act-2026-ensure-human-oversight-ai-workplace
FAQ
What does California’s No Robo Bosses Act require?
SB 947 bars employers from relying solely on an automated decision system to discipline or fire a worker. When an employer primarily relies on one, a human must corroborate the decision with other evidence, the output can’t be used if it can’t be corroborated, and the worker gets a written postuse notice and can request a description of their own data. It becomes operative July 1, 2027.
What does SB 951 change about layoff notices?
SB 951 adds AI disclosures to Cal/WARN notices when a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is caused in whole or in substantial part by AI or other automated technology. The notice must state the affected numbers and occupations, the job functions being automated, and the type of technology, and it must open with “This notice is for a technology displacement.”
Did California require notice when AI replaces hiring?
No. An April 2026 draft of SB 951 included a technology hiring disruption notice and a 90-day displacement notice. The enacted law dropped both and instead requires the Employment Development Department to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028, including recommendations on a possible notice for technological cessation in hiring.
Is SB 947 an example of Responsible AI or AI Governance?
It is AI Governance. Responsible AI is machine checking machine with no human review. SB 947 requires a human checkpoint where the reviewer can accept the output, or reject it when it can’t be corroborated or is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading.
What should employers do before the laws apply?
Document a corroboration process for every AI-assisted discipline or termination workflow, set an internal test for when AI is a substantial cause of a layoff, and track roles that stop being posted after AI deployments. Measure reviewer rejection rates so the human checkpoint can be shown to work.
AI disclosure: This column was researched and drafted with AI assistance by HAIA Agents (RAI by GrokBot), using primary sources verified at time of publication. #AIg
Leave a Reply