AI has been rapidly transforming the global workplace for better or worse. While employers have seemingly reaped the benefits of increased efficiency and productivity offered through the use of AI tools, workers have been hit with increasingly frequent layoffs as their jobs and skillsets have been made obsolete by these new tools.
In a bid to protect its workers, California has focused this year’s legislation on targeting AI-driven employment decisions, workplace surveillance, and technology-related job displacement. In doing so, the California legislature is making one thing clear: employers cannot simply hand the keys to an algorithm and hope for the best.
From human oversight of disciplinary and termination decisions to greater transparency around AI-related layoffs, the legal landscape is evolving rapidly—and employers need to keep pace. Here’s what California’s new workplace AI laws mean for employers, HR professionals, and the future of workforce compliance.
SB 947 – “No Robo Bosses Act”: Automated Decision Systems (ADS)
Beginning July 1, 2027, employers will be prohibited from relying solely on Automated Decision Systems (“ADS”) when making employment-related decisions. For purposes of the new law, “ADS” means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or AI that issues simplified output, including scores, classifications, or recommendations, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision-making.
The new law requires an employer to direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating or supporting information for disciplinary and termination decisions, including (a) supervisory or managerial evaluations; (b) personnel files; (c) employees’ work product; (d) peer reviews; and/or (e) witness interviews, which may include relevant online customer reviews. If the ADS output cannot be corroborated or a human reviewer concludes that it is inaccurate or misleading, the employer is prohibited from relying on the ADS output in making a disciplinary or termination decision.
The bill also bars employers from using an ADS to infer a worker’s protected status under FEHA or to predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights.
Employee Notice and Informational Rights Regarding ADS Use
Under the new law, an employer that primarily relied on an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision must provide the affected employee with a written post-use notice when informing the employee of the decision. The notice must comply with all of the following requirements:
The post-use notice must be written in plain language and provided as a separate, stand-alone communication.
The post-use notice must be in the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to employees.
The post-use notice must be provided through a simple and easy-to-use method, including email, a hyperlink, or another written format.
The post-use notice must contain all of the following information:
A statement that the employer primarily relied on an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision concerning the employee.
A statement that a human reviewed the decision and corroborated the ADS output.
Contact information for a human whom the employee may contact for more information about the decision, as well as information about the employee’s right to access a description of the employee’s own data used by the ADS when the employer primarily relied on an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision.
A statement that the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the employee for exercising their rights under this part.
In addition, employees have the right to obtain a description of the employee data primarily used by an ADS in a disciplinary or termination decision. When an employer is required to provide a description of employee data in response to a request, that description must be provided in a manner that anonymizes the personal information of customers, other employees, and other individuals.
The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors have enforcement authority, and employees may also bring private rights of action to recover, in part, civil penalties of up to $500 per violation.
SB 951 – Cal/WARN: AI Technological Displacement Notice
SB 951 revises the Cal/WARN Act to require a special notice for a mass layoff, relocation, or termination caused, in whole or in substantial part, by an AI system or other automated technology that replaces or automates employment positions. This special notice must include the following information:
· The number, classification or occupation, and work location of employees whose layoffs are substantially attributable to replacement or automation by AI or other automated technology.
· The job functions performed by those employees that will be automated by AI or other automated technology.
· The specific category or type of AI system or other automation technology that substantially contributed to the technological displacement.
· The statement “This notice is for a technology displacement” at the top of the notice.
The Employment Development Department (EDD) must publish a summary of the notices received on its website and post a quarterly statewide summary of reported technological displacements.
Notably, Cal/WARN’s 60-day advance notice requirement and coverage thresholds remain unchanged.
SB 574 – Attorneys’ Use of Generative AI
SB 574 imposes significant restrictions on attorneys’ use of generative artificial intelligence and requires attorneys to disclose their use of generative AI in court filings.
Under this new law, attorneys are prohibited from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. An attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law must:
Refrain from entering confidential, personally identifying, or other nonpublic information into a generative AI system if access to that information is not restricted to the attorney or authorized users who are obligated to keep the information confidential.
Take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including the accuracy of case and statutory citations, and correct erroneous or hallucinated outputs in any material used by the attorney.
Disclose the use of generative AI in court filings and submissions.
“Personal identifying information” includes driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, National Crime Information and Criminal Identification and Information numbers, addresses and telephone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses, and court personnel, medical or psychiatric information, financial information, account numbers, and any other content sealed by court order or deemed confidential by court rule or statute.
The new law also prohibits arbitrators from delegating any part of their decision-making process to a generative AI tool. Arbitrators are also prohibited from relying on information generated by AI outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand.
AB 1803 – Mandating Anti-Hate Speech Training
Beginning January 1, 2028, AB 1803 requires legally mandated sexual harassment training to include anti-hate speech training, such as practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on protected characteristics.
AB 2495 – Unlawful Immigration-Related Practices
AB 2495 expands existing immigration law protections under Labor Code Section 1019 to prohibit retaliation against any person who exercises or attempts to exercise any right under federal, state, or local statutes and regulations applicable to employees.
The new law also prohibits an employer or any other person from engaging in conduct related to an individual’s perceived immigration status that would reasonably tend to dissuade that individual from engaging in conduct they have a legal right to engage in under any applicable federal, state, or local statute or regulation, or to induce the individual to engage in conduct they have a legal right to refrain from undertaking.
Violations of this new law may result in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per employee or person for each violation, in addition to other remedies already provided under Section 1019.
SB 1149 – Bereavement Leave for a “Designated Person”
SB 1149 expands the categories of individuals for whom an employee may take up to five days of bereavement leave to include the employee’s “designated person.” Employees may identify a designated person when taking bereavement leave, but employers may limit each employee to one designated person per 12-month period.
AB 1697 – Stay-or-Pay Contract Provisions
In a rare bit of good news for California employers, AB 1697 loosens some of the restrictions imposed by California’s stay-or-pay law, enacted last year. That law generally prohibited contracts requiring employees to repay retention bonuses to employers upon separation from employment, subject to a handful of exceptions.
First, the new law delays enforcement of these stay-or-pay requirements by one year, from January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2027, and applies only to stay-or-pay contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027.
Next, the new law expands the existing exception for contracts involving discretionary or unearned monetary payments or bonuses to include contracts entered into after employment begins. The prior version of the law prohibited such contracts and limited permissible repayment obligations to contracts entered into at the “outset of employment.” With this change, retention bonuses are back on the table, provided they meet certain requirements:
Repayment terms must be contained in a contract separate from the employment contract.
The employee must be notified of their right to consult an attorney regarding the agreement and given at least five business days to do so.
The retention period must not exceed two years.
Any repayment obligation must be prorated based on the remaining term of the retention period, which may not exceed two years, and must not be subject to interest accrual.
The employee must be given the option to defer receipt of the payment until the end of a fully served retention period, without any repayment obligation.
The employee’s separation from employment before the end of the retention period must be at the employee’s sole discretion or at the employer’s election due to employee misconduct.
In addition, the new law establishes exceptions to the stay-or-pay prohibition for:
Contracts entered into under a recruitment and retention program funded by a grant from a federal, state, or local government agency, provided that the employee’s repayment obligations comply with the grant requirements and do not exceed the service obligations required by the grant.
Repayment obligations arising from advanced paid time off upon voluntary separation, provided that specified conditions are met.
Contracts involving a discretionary or unearned monetary payment from an employer to induce a worker to become affiliated with, or maintain a relationship with, the employer in the context of a relationship between a securities broker-dealer, insurance producer, or investment adviser and its registered and licensed agents or representatives, provided that the contract satisfies specified conditions.
AB 2646 – Approved Agricultural Employee Minimum Wage Rate
AB 2646 sets the minimum hourly wage for an “approved agricultural employee” at $19.75, with annual adjustments based on cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security benefits beginning in January 2027.
“Approved agricultural employees” are employees engaged in agriculture who live outside California and are permitted to work in the state on a temporary or seasonal basis through an application process in which the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or the Employment Development Department has approved, in whole or in part, an application or job order to hire agricultural workers from outside the state
AB 1331 – Workplace Surveillance
AB 1331 now prohibits employers from using a “workplace surveillance tool” to monitor or surveil employees in a workplace bathroom.
Notably, a workplace surveillance tool is broader than video or audio recording devices, and includes any “system, application, instrument, or device that collects or facilitates the collection of employee data, activities, communications, actions, biometrics, or behaviors by means other than direct observation by a person, including, but not limited to, video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking, a photo-optical system, or other means.” Smoke or carbon monoxide detectors and metal detectors are expressly excluded from this restriction.
The new law also gives employees the right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools when entering a workplace bathroom, except where certain limited exceptions apply:
an employee is required to remain available during meal or rest periods;
the employer has a policy requiring possession of the device for identification or safety reasons; or
for access to locked or secure areas if the device (a) does not detect or record audio or video and (b) does not have physically embedded or attached artificial intelligence.
AB 1883 - Workplace Surveillance AI
AB 1883 prohibits certain employers (including government entities, universities, and labor contractors and their clients) from using a workplace surveillance tool that uses AI to collect neural data (such as gait analysis) or recognizes an individual’s emotional state.
Employers are exempted if they are engaged in (1) the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace; or (2) the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes where the use of a workplace surveillance tool is reasonably necessary to comply with a federal statute, a regulation, or binding federal contract.
The Labor Commissioner or a public prosecutor may enforce the provisions of these workplace surveillance tool laws, and permit civil actions for injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Employers who violate the laws’ provisions are subject to civil penalties of up to $500 for each violation.
AB 1961 – Workplace Violence Restraining Orders
Existing law allows employers to seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of an employee, any number of other employees at the workplace or at other workplaces of the employer.
Previously, employers seeking workplace violence restraining orders had to identify an individual employee as a protected party as part of this process, resulting in unique risks around employee privacy and safety.
To address these concerns, AB 1961 now allows employers to seek a temporary restraining order on behalf of a group of employees based on their workplace or location without having to identify an individual employee, so long as there has been a credible threat of violence generally directed at the employer’s workplace or at a group of employees.
AB 2179 – Workplace Violence Restraining Orders
Beginning on January 1, 2028, any party or witness to a petition for a restraining order will be allowed to appear remotely at a hearing and will prohibit any fee for appearing remotely. County courts will be required to develop rules and instructions for these remote appearances and post them on their websites. Commencing on January 1, 2028, the new law also requires courts to allow filings related to such protective orders to be submitted electronically, as specified.
AB 1753 – Protective Orders: Firearms; Notice and Procedures
Prior to enactment of this new law, those seeking a workplace violence restraining order (or other civil restraining order) were required to provide notice to the respondent of the restraining order, regardless of whether the respondent has been taken into custody. This created practical concerns around the petitioner’s safety where notice would be provided to an individual who could have taken retaliatory action against the petitioner and other persons seeking protection before the restraining order was granted.
Effective January 1, 2028, AB 1753 eases this requirement so that those seeking a workplace violence restraining order no longer need to provide prior notice to the respondent if the applicant or the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court under oath that providing notice to the party to be restrained in advance of filing the petition would likely endanger the safety of the petitioner or other persons.
In a further boon to petitioners seeking these protections, the new law also requires courts to permit a party or witness to appear remotely at a hearing for a workplace violence restraining order at no cost.
