Introduction
Senate Bill 7 [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], also known as the “No Robo Bosses” Act [2] [3] [5] [6] [7], has been introduced in California to regulate the use of automated decision systems (ADS) in employee management. This legislation aims to ensure human oversight in employment decisions [5], safeguarding against potential negative impacts of AI on workers [1].
Description
Senate Bill 7 [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], known as the “No Robo Bosses” Act [2] [3] [5] [6] [7], has been introduced by California State Senator Jerry McNerney in Northern California to regulate the use of automated decision systems (ADS) in employee management, particularly in hiring [1] [2] [6] [7], promotions [1] [2] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], discipline [1] [2] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], and terminations [1] [2] [4] [6] [7] [8]. This pioneering legislation, co-authored by Assemblymembers Sade Elhawary and Isaac Bryan [2] [4] [8], mandates human oversight in all major employment decisions [6], ensuring that a human reviewer is involved rather than relying solely on AI tools [6]. The bill emphasizes that AI should serve as a tool for human operators [5], rather than replace human judgment [5], and aims to establish safeguards against the potential unjust or illegal impacts of AI on workers’ livelihoods and working conditions [3], especially as businesses increasingly adopt AI to enhance workplace efficiency and productivity [3].
Key provisions of the bill include a requirement for employers to provide a pre-use notice at least 30 days before introducing an ADS [7], along with a post-use notice detailing how the ADS influenced employment decisions [6] [7]. Employees will have the right to access and correct their data used by an ADS [6] [7], and a clear appeals process must be established for workers disputing ADS-driven decisions [6] [7]. Employers are required to allow 30 days for appeals and must respond within 14 business days after a human review [6]. If a decision is overturned [6], it must be rectified within 21 business days [6]. The bill explicitly prohibits the use of AI for predictive behavior analysis that could lead to adverse actions against employees based on personal information [5], including immigration status and health history [5]. This addresses concerns over the increasing reliance on ADS that can prioritize efficiency and cost over worker safety and well-being. Additionally, it restricts the collection of sensitive personal data [6] [7], which may spark controversy as it could hinder beneficial uses of AI in employee management [6]. Violations of the law could result in civil penalties of $500 per violation and potential lawsuits from employees.
SB 7 differs from Assembly Bill 1018 [6] [7], which also seeks to regulate AI in employment but emphasizes broader compliance obligations for employers and AI vendors [7], including audits and risk assessments [6] [7]. While SB 7 focuses on human oversight and bans predictive behavior analysis [6] [7], AB 1018 centers on impact assessments and reporting [6] [7]. SB 7 is expected to align with upcoming regulations from the California Privacy Protection Agency regarding automated decision-making technology and applies to all employers [6], including small businesses and nonprofits [7], without exceptions [6].
As federal efforts to regulate AI have stalled [2], states are expected to take the lead in AI regulation [2]. The introduction of this bill reflects a growing trend of state-level legislation addressing AI in the workplace [2], particularly in light of previous federal proposals that did not advance [2]. The No Robo Bosses Act is anticipated to generate significant debate [6], with proponents advocating for human oversight to prevent discrimination and critics arguing that existing laws suffice [6]. As the legislation progresses [7], employers are advised to audit their current AI systems [7], implement human oversight policies [6] [7], review data collection practices to avoid prohibited characteristics [7], establish AI governance frameworks [6] [7], and stay updated on compliance requirements [6]. Additionally, Senate Bill 53 proposes the establishment of CalCompute [6], a public cloud-computing cluster to support AI development [6], and aims to enhance protections for whistleblowers reporting AI-related risks [6]. If enacted [2] [5], SB 7 would be the first of its kind in the United States and may displace certain provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) due to overlapping requirements.
Conclusion
The introduction of Senate Bill 7 marks a significant step in regulating AI in employment, emphasizing the importance of human oversight to prevent potential discrimination and protect workers’ rights. As states take the lead in AI regulation [2], this bill could set a precedent for future legislation, influencing how AI is integrated into workplace practices across the United States. Employers are encouraged to proactively adapt to these changes, ensuring compliance and safeguarding employee interests.
References
[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/california-senator-introduces-bill-regulate-ai-workplace/3813016/
[2] https://www.hrdive.com/news/california-no-robo-bosses-act-regulate-ai/742323/
[3] https://sd05.senate.ca.gov/news/california-lawmaker-introduces-no-robo-bosses-act-regulate-ai-workplace
[4] https://www.aibase.com/news/16113
[5] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/no-robo-bosses-act-california-proposed-ai-workplace-regulations-sb7-mcnerney/
[6] https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/california-lawmaker-proposes-no-robo-bosses-act-what-employers-need-to-know-about-latest-ai-legislation.html
[7] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-lawmaker-proposes-no-robo-9102426/
[8] https://sd05.senate.ca.gov/news/mcnerney-introduces-no-robo-bosses-act-ensure-human-oversight-ai-workplace
