Read the complete article from Contra Costa News, “California Legislature OK’s ‘No Robo Bosses Act’”

According to the article, the California legislature has approved Senator Jerry McNerney’s SB 7, the “No Robo Bosses,” Act, groundbreaking legislation that would require human oversight of artificial intelligence systems in the workplace to help prevent abuses.

SB 7 would bar California employers from relying primarily on AI systems, known as automated decision-making systems (ADS), to discipline or terminate workers without human oversight.

“Businesses are increasingly using AI to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace. But there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers’ livelihoods,” Sen. McNerney said. “SB 7 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it establishes commonsense guardrails to ensure that California workers cannot be fired or disciplined by robo bosses with no human oversight.”

SB 7 won approval in the state Senate on a 28-9 vote after the Assembly passed the bill on Thursday evening on a vote of 45-17. Sponsored by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, SB 7 now goes to the governor’s desk for consideration. If signed, the No Robo Bosses Act would be the first such law in the nation.

“Bosses Should Have Souls”

“Bosses should have souls. We need commonsense guardrails to ensure human oversight of algorithms when workers are disciplined or fired. We cannot allow robo-bosses to go unchecked, while workers are treated like collateral damage of new technologies in the workplace,” said Lorena Gonzalez, President of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO. “With the passage of Senate Bill 7 today, California can be at the forefront of enacting first-in-the-nation protections for every working Californian against the new threat of unregulated robo-bosses. We have proven it time and time again, California can lead the way in innovation and workers’ rights.”

Employers Increasingly Using ADS

Employers around the globe are increasingly employing ADS — powered by artificial intelligence — to surveil, manage, and replace workers in the name of maximizing productivity and reducing costs. According to recent estimates, there are more than 550 so-called “bossware” products available to employers to help manage workplaces. But there examples of ADS making troubling errors, including people being mistakenly terminated from their job.

SB7’s Safeguards for AI in the Workplace

SB 7 establishes necessary safeguards for AI in the workplace by:

(1) Requiring human oversight of ADS systems used in disciplinary and firing decisions;

(2) Ensuring that employers provide advance notice to workers about the use of ADS to make employment-related decisions; and

(3) Making sure that employers notify workers who are disciplined or terminated if that decision was made primarily by ADS.

SB 7 would be enforced by the state labor commissioner, the attorney general, or local prosecutors.

In Congress, McNerney co-founded and co-chaired the Artificial Intelligence Caucus and authored the AI in Government Act.

Discussion Questions

  1. Explain California’s “No Robo Bosses” Act.

    California’s “No Robo Bosses” Act (Senate Bill 7, also known as “SB 7”) is a proposed law as of 2025 that aims how employers use artificial intelligence and automated decision-systems (ADS) in workplace decisions. Its goal is to ensure human oversight when AI is used to make or influence important employment actions. The Act would restrict employers from relying primarily on ADS to make disciplinary or termination decisions without human review. It would cover a broad range of employment decisions, including hiring, promotions, demotions, discipline, termination, performance evaluation, scheduling, job tasks, benefits, safety, etc. It also imposes limits on the kinds of data and the way ADS can use or infer workers’ personal or protected status information. For example, ADS systems could not use or derive information about a worker’s immigration status, religious or political beliefs, health history, emotional state, neural data, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, etc.

  2. What is the best argument for this legislation? What is the best argument against it?

    Student responses may vary in response to this question. In your author’s opinion, the best argument for this legislation is that it retains the “human touch” of oversight in terms of making some of the most impactful decisions for a worker, including whether the worker will be allowed to remain employed. The best argument against the legislation is that automated decisions systems (ADS) are efficient and effective technological tools and can remove inherent biases a human resource (HR) manager might exhibit while engaged in HR decision-making that, again, can be very impactful for employees.

  3. Do you support this legislation? Why or why not? If this legislation is signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom, do you believe it will serve as model legislation that other states will implement? Explain your response.

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, Governor Newsom will sign the legislation into law. In terms of whether a version of this legislation will be adopted by other states, California is often described as a “legal trendsetter” because of its large economy, progressive legislation, and regulatory innovation. Examples include automobile emissions standards; consumer privacy; cannabis legalization; chemical warnings; “gig worker” classification; renewable energy and climate policy; and workplace and labor protections.