Great Lakes Wire

California’s “No Robo Bosses Act” (SB 7) is awaiting a decision from Governor Gavin Newsom, who must sign or veto the bill by the end of September. If signed, the law would take effect on January 1, 2026.

The legislation targets transparency and accountability in how employers use automated decision systems (ADS) at work. Employers would be required to notify workers and job applicants when such systems are used and ensure that important employment decisions are not made solely by machines. The bill mandates written notice to any worker likely affected by ADS—excluding hiring-related systems—at least 30 days before deployment. For ADS already in place when the law takes effect, employers would have until April 1, 2026, to provide notice. New hires must receive this information within 30 days of starting their jobs.

The definition of “worker” in the bill includes employees as well as independent contractors providing services to businesses or government entities.

The bill defines an automated decision system as: “any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision-making and materially impacts natural persons.”

This broad definition covers tools such as resume scanners; keystroke monitoring software; voice or text analysis programs; performance tracking applications; scheduling assistants; and AI-driven training protocols that assess employee performance. Any tool assisting with aspects of employment—including hiring, evaluation, discipline, promotion, or termination—may fall under these rules.

“Employment-related decisions” are defined broadly as any choices impacting wages, benefits, schedules, evaluations, hiring outcomes, discipline actions, promotions or terminations, job tasks and responsibilities, training access, productivity requirements, or workplace safety.

A key provision is that employers cannot rely exclusively on ADS for decisions related to discipline, termination or deactivation—a term often used in gig economy settings for ending a worker’s access to company platforms. The bill also prohibits using ADS to violate laws; infer protected characteristics like race or gender; collect undisclosed data; or retaliate against workers exercising legal rights.

Employers must issue two types of notices regarding ADS use: pre-use and post-use. Pre-use notice must be given at least 30 days before deploying an ADS (or by April 1 if already in use), separately from other communications and through simple methods like email or hyperlink. In hiring scenarios specifically:

- Employers must inform applicants if an ADS will affect hiring decisions.

- Notices should describe what employment decisions may be impacted.

- They should include general categories of input data used by the ADS and its sources.

- Notices must disclose any parameters known to disproportionately affect outcomes.

- The creators of the ADS must be identified.

- Workers’ rights to access and correct their data must be explained.

- Anti-retaliation language is required.

- If quotas set by an ADS apply to a worker’s role those should be described.

Post-use notices are necessary if an employer primarily relied on an ADS for disciplinary action. At the time such a decision is communicated:

- Employers must identify a human contact for further questions about the decision and provide information about requesting relevant data.

- Employees must be told that an ADS was involved in making the decision.

- Workers’ rights to request copies of their data must be included.

- An anti-retaliation statement is required.

There is no individual right for workers to sue under this law directly but violations could result in civil penalties enforced by state labor authorities.

Employers operating in California are advised to review all HR systems for potential coverage under this law and prepare compliant notifications if it passes. Human resources teams should create clear procedures allowing employees access to their data used in these systems and train staff members designated as human reviewers when automated outputs influence disciplinary decisions. Documentation protocols should ensure additional information is considered before finalizing such decisions.

For more news and resources on workplace regulations see SBAM’s updates.