California Passes ‘No Robo Bosses Act’ to Shield Workers from Automated Firings

California has enacted sweeping new regulations aimed at preventing artificial intelligence from solely determining employee disciplinary actions and terminations. Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Senate Bill 947, popularly dubbed the “No Robo Bosses Act,” into law, marking a significant shift in how state regulators are approaching workplace automation.

The legislation, set to take effect on July 1, 2027, explicitly prohibits employers from outsourcing disciplinary and termination decisions entirely to automated decision systems (ADS). Under the new rules, companies must ensure that any AI-driven conclusions regarding worker conduct are subjected to human verification. Additionally, employers are mandated to provide terminated or disciplined employees with a detailed explanation of the reasons behind the decision, including the specific data points considered, such as personnel files, performance evaluations, work samples, peer reviews, and witness interviews.

The bill stipulates that if an employer cannot corroborate the output of an ADS, or if a human reviewer deems the automated findings inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer is barred from using that data to justify disciplinary or termination actions. The law also requires businesses to clarify in the event of mass layoffs or relocations whether an AI system was a causal factor.

This legislative move comes amid a rapid increase in corporate AI adoption. An April survey by MyPerfectResume revealed that 73% of HR professionals utilize AI for hiring decisions, while 52% employ it for restructuring and role planning. Furthermore, 51% of respondents use the technology to identify “risky” candidates during screening, though only 26% admitted to using AI for layoff decisions.

While federal AI regulation remains largely voluntary and focused on broader safety accords, states are increasingly filling the regulatory gap. California and New York have historically led in enacting stricter laws, and Illinois recently became the first state to require third-party audits of frontier AI labs this summer. Other states, such as Colorado and Connecticut, have chosen to focus on mandating transparency regarding AI usage rather than direct intervention in hiring processes.

Lily Li, an AI lawyer and founder of Metaverse Law, told ZDNet that California’s new framework is likely to set a precedent for other jurisdictions. However, she cautioned that companies may attempt to circumvent the spirit of the law by treating the required human reviews as mere formalities to avoid operational costs.

“We could see employers engaging in check-the-box reviews rather than meaningful human review,” Li noted, adding that the ability for employees to request explanations serves as a vital counterbalance. Consequently, the burden of challenging unvetted AI-driven firings may fall heavily on complainants pursuing legal action, leaving workplace protections fragmented across the country until federal standards are established.