California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 947 on Wednesday, making California the first state in the nation to bar employers from firing or disciplining workers solely because of artificial intelligence decisions. Under the No Robo Bosses Act, companies that rely primarily on AI output must have a human reviewer verify any termination or disciplinary action using other information, such as managerial evaluations, peer reviews and personnel files. Workers affected by those decisions must receive written notice that AI played the principal role, a description of the data the system used and contact information for a human who can explain the decision.
The measure reflects a rare bipartisan concern about workplace automation. California State Senator Jerry McNerney, a Democrat who authored the bill, first introduced it in 2025 after organized labor called for limits on employers’ use of AI. “No worker should ever be fired or disciplined by a machine, AI or not,” McNerney told CNBC. “Artificial intelligence systems have the potential to boost productivity, but they’ve also made errors and misjudgments and exhibited bias. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.”
Newsom vetoed an earlier version in October, objecting to a requirement that businesses give advance notice if they used even minor AI tools. McNerney brought the bill back in February, removing that provision as well as language that extended protections to gig workers. Those changes drew criticism from rideshare companies Uber and Lyft, but proved necessary to win the governor’s signature. Business groups still opposed the final version, saying it left employers without clear standards.
Who Bears the Risk
An OECD survey published late the previous year found that 90% of U.S. managers said their firms had adopted at least one tool to “instruct, monitor or evaluate workers”—a higher share than anywhere else globally. Workers have already felt the effects. Former employees suing Meta alleged in a lawsuit filed in July that AI-assisted systems ranked and selected workers for layoffs, disproportionately affecting employees who had taken medical or family leave. Meta denied the allegations. A May survey by United for Respect, a nonprofit with roots in the labor movement and retail sector, found that Walmart and Amazon workers increasingly worry about automated human-resources decisions.
Public concern is growing, too. A July Gallup poll found that 39% of Americans believed AI did more harm than good, up from 31% in 2025. In an August study, Pew Research found that 71% thought AI would “take people’s jobs,” an increase of around 7% from around two years earlier.
Labor Unions Claim Victory
After the bill signing, Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, and the act’s lead sponsor, said: “When working people organize, we get results. Workers across California have demanded that our state lead the way in regulating AI in our workplaces. And today, we see that begin to happen.” She said California workers and unions had “changed the national narrative on how Americans can fight back and win against AI taking over our jobs and workplaces.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties nonprofit, called the law a “strong step toward giving workers the protections they need in workplaces that use automated decisionmaking systems.” It said it would keep working with labor groups to “advance policies that protect human dignity in the workplace.”
The Broader Fight
SB 947 is the first law of its kind to take effect nationwide. Some local rules had limited AI use in employment decisions. Illinois’ Public Act 103-0804, which took effect in January, requires notice when employers use AI for specified employment purposes, but it doesn’t bar automated systems from making employment decisions. New York, Louisiana and New Jersey had considered similar measures, but those states hadn’t acted.
Federal action remains stalled. In June, U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) and Brian Schatz (D.-Hawaii) introduced federal legislation with the same name, which would bar employers from “relying on automated decision systems to make work-related decisions.” CNBC said Markey’s bill was effectively dead on arrival.
Newsom has taken action on other AI issues as well. Earlier in September, he signed a broader executive order addressing potential existential risks from AI models “before it’s too late” and a measure creating a state framework for independent evaluation and auditing of AI models. He said the federal government was abdicating “its responsibility to protect Americans.”
Even Steve Hilton, California’s Republican nominee for governor, supported SB 947. “The California Chamber says rules requiring human review and basic accountability are too burdensome for employers,” Hilton wrote in an open letter to Gonzalez. “What a ridiculous thing for them to say. In some ways, I don’t think SB 947 goes far enough. Employers should not be allowed to use AI to decide whether someone is fired, demoted, loses regular hours, or is shut out of the program they rely on for income.”
Why This Matters:
Automated decision-making systems are spreading through American workplaces faster than regulation can keep up. Workers often can’t see how algorithms assess their performance or determine their fate. They have even less recourse when the systems fail. The evidence is mounting: algorithmic systems have disproportionately harmed workers returning from medical or family leave, employees at major retailers report anxiety about automated evaluations, and public concern about AI job displacement has climbed sharply in recent years.
SB 947 sets a minimal floor. Human beings must review and corroborate AI-driven terminations and discipline. The law doesn’t ban the technology; it demands accountability and transparency. For workers in a state with 39 million residents, that’s a practical protection. Elsewhere, workers face a reminder: the federal government has largely abandoned its responsibility to set minimum standards, leaving states to fill the void.