California SB 947: automated decision systems in the workplace

Status

• ApprovedBy the Governor on 30 September 2026, and filed with the Secretary of State the same day. Chapter 859, Statutes of 2026.
• Operative1 July 2027 (section 1526.7).
• WhereA new Part 5.5.5 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, “Automated Decision Systems in the Workplace”, sections 1520 to 1526.7.
• EmployerDefined to include all branches of state government, cities, counties, school districts and other public entities, labor contractors, and farm labor contractors. The Legislature declares it a matter of statewide concern that applies to charter cities.
• ADS“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 decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons.” Spam filters, firewalls, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculators, databases and datasets are excluded.

What it requires

• Prohibited usesAn employer may not use an ADS to prevent compliance with or violate labor, occupational health and safety, employment or civil rights laws; to infer an employee’s protected status under Government Code section 12940; or to predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising legal rights (section 1522(a)).
• Not aloneNo sole reliance on an ADS for a disciplinary or termination decision (section 1522(b)(1)).
• A humanWhere the employer primarily relies on ADS output, it “shall direct a human to corroborate the decision” using data collected or used to produce the output, or other relevant corroborating or supporting information. That may include supervisory or managerial evaluations, personnel files, work product, peer reviews and witness interviews (section 1522(b)(2)).
• If it failsIf the employer cannot corroborate the output, or the human reviewer concludes that it is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the employer shall not use it to make the decision (section 1522(c)).
• The dataOn request, the employee receives “a meaningful, objective description of the employee’s own data used by the ADS”, with other people’s personal information anonymized (section 1522(d) and (e)).
• The noticeAt the time the employee is told of the decision, a written postuse notice in plain language, as a separate communication, stating that the employer primarily relied on an ADS; that a human reviewed the decision and corroborated the ADS output; a human contact for more information and for the data description; and that retaliation is prohibited (section 1524).

Enforcement and limits

• RetaliationProhibited against an employee who uses or asserts the rights in the part, complains to the Labor Commissioner or assists an investigation (section 1526).
• Who enforcesThe Labor Commissioner, including investigation, temporary relief, citations and civil actions; and public prosecutors (section 1526.1(a) and (b)).
• The burdenOnce it is shown that an ADS was used to make a disciplinary or deactivation decision, “the employer must demonstrate that the employer did not primarily rely upon an ADS or that the employer complied with Sections 1522 and 1524” (section 1526.1(c)).
• PenaltyA civil penalty of $500 per violation (section 1526.1(e)), with injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs available in a civil action.
• Other lawLocal ordinances giving equal or greater protection are not preempted (section 1526.2). Meeting this part’s notice requirements satisfies substantially similar notice provisions of other state law, but a business subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act remains subject to the California Privacy Protection Agency’s automated decisionmaking technology regulations (sections 1526.3 and 1526.4).
• ExclusionsParties to a collective bargaining agreement that explicitly waives the part and provides protection from algorithmic management (section 1526.5); and uses required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, regulation or binding contract on aircraft for the national airspace or on national security, military, space or defense products (section 1526.6).

Why it is on this site

Regulayer™: Human Control for AI. Regulayer™ sits next to an AI agent. Before the agent acts, it checks whether a named person still allows that action. If not, it stops it. Either way it keeps a record you can hand to an inspector.

SB 947 is here because of what it puts into law. An automated decision system may not be the sole basis for disciplining or dismissing an employee in California. Where it is the main basis, a named human must corroborate the decision before it is made, and the employer must later be able to show that it complied.

Sources

• SB 947, Employment: automated decision systems, Chapter 859, Statutes of 2026, chaptered text, California Legislative Information, read in full for this page

Related

• The law library
• Colorado · SB 26-189, automated decision transparency
• NYC · Local Law 144, automated hiring bias audit
• GDPR · Article 22, safeguards on automated decisions
• CCPA/CPRA, the privacy law section 1526.4 preserves

Read against the chaptered text, in full. Information, not legal advice.