Imagine logging in for a shift and finding out a piece of software has decided you are done. No manager, no conversation, just an automated message and a deactivated account. For some delivery drivers and warehouse workers, that is not a thought experiment. It is how the day ended. A bill moving through the California Legislature right now is trying to put a human being back in the room before a computer can end someone's livelihood.
That bill is Senate Bill 947, better known as the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026. This post explains in plain English what the bill would do, where it stands today, and what it could mean for both workers and employers if it becomes law.
What Is the No Robo Bosses Act?
SB 947 is a proposed California law introduced by State Senator Jerry McNerney on February 2, 2026. It would amend Division 2 of the California Labor Code to set rules for how employers use what the bill calls "automated decision systems," or ADS.
An automated decision system is a broad idea. The bill describes it as any computational process built on machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that replaces human judgment when issuing scores, recommendations, or decisions that seriously affect workers. In plain terms, if a piece of software is helping decide who gets written up, suspended, fired, or, for gig workers, deactivated, this bill is aimed at it.
The core idea is simple and is captured in the nickname. A robot should not be the boss who fires you. A human should.
This Is the Second Try: What Happened to SB 7
If the concept sounds familiar, that is because lawmakers tried something similar last year. In 2025, the Legislature passed SB 7, an earlier version of the No Robo Bosses Act. It cleared both the Senate and the Assembly, but Governor Newsom vetoed it in October 2025.
In his veto message, the Governor said the earlier bill was too broad. He worried it would have placed heavy notice requirements on businesses using even simple, harmless tools, and that the restrictions on how employers could use these systems were too sweeping.
SB 947 is the rewrite. Senator McNerney's office has described it as a version built to answer those concerns. It narrows the notice rules so they apply after a decision rather than before, and it spells out more clearly the specific situations where an employer may not use an automated system at all.
What the Bill Would Actually Require
The heart of SB 947 is a rule against letting software make the final call on serious employment decisions without a person involved. Here is what that looks like in practice.
A Human Has to Be in the Loop
The bill would bar employers from relying only on an automated system to discipline, fire, or deactivate a worker. Before acting on what the software recommends, the employer would need to apply real human review and find independent evidence that backs up the decision. A manager glancing at a score and clicking "approve" is not the kind of meaningful review the bill is aiming for.
Some Uses Would Be Off Limits Entirely
SB 947 would prohibit employers from using these systems to do certain things at all, including:
- Predicting your behavior or state of mind. Software could not be used to guess a worker's behavior, beliefs, intentions, personality, or emotional state.
- Guessing protected characteristics. A system could not be used to infer things like race, religion, or gender.
- Punishing workers for using their rights. A system could not be used to identify, profile, or take adverse action against a worker for exercising a legal right.
The bill also limits how individualized worker data can feed pay decisions, unless the employer can clearly show that pay differences for similar work are tied to real cost differences in the task itself.
You Would Get a Plain-Language Notice
If an employer primarily relied on an automated system to discipline, fire, or deactivate someone, the worker would be entitled to a written notice after the fact. That notice would have to be in plain language and would generally include details about the system, the data it used, contact information for a human reviewer, and a statement that the worker cannot be retaliated against for raising concerns.
You Could Ask to See Your Own Data
A worker would be able to request a copy of the most recent 12 months of their own data that the system mainly used to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision. That gives a person a way to actually understand what the machine was looking at.
How the Rules Would Be Enforced
A right with no teeth does not change much, so the bill includes several enforcement paths. The Labor Commissioner could enforce the rules. A worker who was harmed could also bring a civil lawsuit on their own. Public prosecutors could bring enforcement actions as well.
The bill sets a civil penalty of 500 dollars per violation, and it allows for other relief that can include punitive damages and attorney's fees in appropriate cases. It also includes an anti-retaliation rule, so an employer generally could not fire, demote, suspend, or threaten a worker for asserting their rights under the law.
There are some carve-outs. Workplaces covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement could be exempt if the agreement meets certain conditions and explicitly waives the bill's provisions, and there is language addressing employers meeting requirements tied to federal government work.
Where the Bill Stands Right Now
As of early June 2026, SB 947 is still a proposal, not a law. The most recent amended version is dated May 14, 2026. The California Senate passed the bill on its floor in mid-May, and on May 26, 2026, it was referred to committees in the Assembly for further review.
In other words, it has cleared the first chamber and is now working its way through the second. It would still need to pass the Assembly and be signed by the Governor before it takes effect. Given that a similar bill was vetoed last year, the outcome is far from certain. This is a good moment to understand the bill, but nothing in it is binding on any employer today.
What This Could Mean for California Workers
If SB 947 becomes law, the biggest practical change is transparency. Workers who suspect an algorithm played a role in losing a shift, a job, or platform access would have a written explanation and a way to see the underlying data. That matters, because it is very hard to challenge a decision you cannot even see.
Even while the bill is pending, the issues it raises are real today. If you believe an automated tool may have played a part in your discipline or termination, it generally helps to keep your own records: save messages, app screenshots, performance dashboards, and any explanation you were given. Our guide on documenting workplace issues in California walks through how to do this. Existing California law, including protections against wrongful termination and rules on workplace privacy, may already apply depending on the facts.
What This Could Mean for California Employers
For employers, SB 947 is a signal worth reading early, even before any vote. Automated tools that touch scheduling, performance scoring, discipline, and termination are squarely in the Legislature's sights, and this is the second year in a row a version of this bill has advanced.
Employers that want to stay ahead of the trend can start by taking simple steps now: make a list of every automated tool that influences how workers are managed or removed, make sure a trained human actually reviews and can explain those decisions, and keep records of the data behind them. These are sensible practices regardless of whether this particular bill passes, and they line up with California's broader move toward regulating AI in employment decisions.
How Wiser Workplace Can Help
Disputes about automated discipline and termination are often emotional and confusing for everyone involved. The worker feels blindsided by a faceless system. The employer may not fully understand what its own software did. That gap is exactly the kind of thing structured mediation is built to close.
A neutral mediator can help both sides slow down, lay out what the tool actually does, look at what data exists, and work toward a resolution without a long and costly court fight. That can be especially useful when an employer would rather fix a flawed process and preserve a working relationship than litigate.
Wiser Workplace is a California-based resolution platform that connects workers and employers with experienced neutrals who understand workplace disputes from both sides. The platform is built around California's mediation confidentiality protections, and it is designed to be accessible to workers without a lawyer and to employers who want to resolve issues efficiently. You can learn more about how workplace mediation works in California.
The Bottom Line
The No Robo Bosses Act is California's latest attempt to make sure that when serious decisions about a person's job are on the line, a human being is accountable for them. SB 947 would not ban automated tools. It would require a person to review the big calls, give workers an explanation and access to their data, and create penalties when employers cross the line. For now it is a bill in motion, not a rule in force, but the direction is clear. The conversation about who, or what, gets to be the boss is only getting louder.