California’s New Workplace AI Laws: 8 Takeaways for HR

California is again the testing ground for workplace technology rules.

On Sept. 30, 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a group of laws that limit how employers use artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, evaluate and lay off workers. Together, they reach discipline, surveillance and reductions in force, three areas where HR decisions increasingly run through software. Because other states often follow California, HR leaders everywhere should understand these AI laws.

What the New AI Laws Require

SB 947: No Robo Bosses. Employers may not rely solely on an automated decision system (ADS) to discipline or terminate an employee. An ADS is any tool built on machine learning, statistical modeling, or AI that produces a score, classification, or recommendation used to assist or replace human decisions.

Employers that “primarily rely” on ADS output must take steps to corroborate the information and notify the employee. Specifically, when making the disciplinary or termination decision, a person must independently corroborate the ADS output using other sources, such as supervisor evaluations, personnel files, employee work product, peer reviews or witness interviews. If the employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, it cannot be used to make the decision. Employers that primarily rely on an ADS must give the employee a written post-use notice and, on request, a description of the employee’s own data that the system used. The law also bars using an ADS to infer protected characteristics or to retaliate.

AB 1883: AI emotion and neural monitoring. Employers may not use AI-enabled workplace surveillance tools to recognize, infer or predict an employee’s emotional state, or to collect neural data. Examples of surveillance tools that may not be AI-enabled to monitor emotional state include video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking or photo-optical systems. Monitoring that does not use AI, and tools used to ensure safety, remain permitted.

AB 1331: Bathroom surveillance. Employers may not use surveillance tools to monitor employees in workplace bathrooms, with narrow exceptions such as court orders, safety cameras, and badge or alarm access that has no recording or AI features. Employees may leave tracking devices behind when entering a bathroom.

SB 951: AI and layoffs. When a mass layoff, relocation or termination is caused in whole or in substantial part by AI or automation, the existing 60-day Cal/WARN notice must also identify the job functions that will be automated and the specific category or type of AI or other automating technology that substantially resulted in the displacement. The notice must state “This notice is for a technology displacement” at the top.

Enforcement of AI Laws

The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce SB 947, AB 1331 and AB 1883, with civil penalties of $500 per violation. Because penalties are per violation, exposure grows with headcount.

SB 951 carries penalties of up to $500 per day, and affected employees may sue under Cal/WARN.

Practical Takeaways for HR Leaders

1. Inventory every tool. Employers may want to list all AI, ADS, and monitoring features, including those embedded in HR, security, and productivity platforms, and ask vendors in writing what each tool collects and infers.
2. Determine whether you “primarily” rely on an ADS for discipline or termination. SB 947 uses the term “primarily” without defining it. Employers may want to assess discipline or termination processes in which an ADS output served as a trigger or a principal factor.
3. Implement human review. Where employers primarily rely on an ADS for discipline or termination decisions, they may want to build a genuine review process in which a person corroborates the output using other sources, such as supervisor evaluations, personnel files or witness interviews.
4. Prepare notices now. Employers may want to build the post-use notice template, data request process and contact person before July 1, 2027, when SB 947 takes effect.
5. Map the overlapping California rules. SB 947 is not the only source of obligations for automated tools. Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, the CCPA regulations on automated decision technology require covered businesses that use it for significant decisions, including hiring, discipline and termination, to give advance notice, offer an opt-out or an appeal to a human reviewer, and answer requests for information about how the tool was used. Employers may want to align the SB 947 notices and review process with these requirements instead of building each one separately.
6. Retire prohibited features. Before Jan. 1, 2027, employers may want to disable bathroom location tracking and emotion inference functions and update handbooks and device policies.
7. Review emotion analytics. Call center sentiment analysis, mood scoring, and stress or engagement analytics are likely to be trouble spots under AB 1883. Employers may want to ask vendors whether any feature infers mood, stress or engagement, and turn off or replace any that do.
8. Coordinate layoff communications. Employers may want to decide early whether AI or automation is a cause of a reduction in headcount, then align the WARN notice with separation agreements and public statements.

Multistate Employers Face a Growing List of AI Laws

Other jurisdictions are moving in the same direction. Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois and New York City have adopted rules on automated employment tools, so a single review-and-notice protocol is usually more efficient than a separate California process.

Employers may also want to watch for Labor Commissioner guidance and possible cleanup legislation, since the Governor’s signing message invited refinements to AB 1331 and AB 1883.

This area is still evolving, so employers will want to build processes that can adapt.