California Legislature Passes Bills Regulating AI Workplace Surveillance and Protecting Menopause

As the California State Legislature gaveled out its 2025–2026 session in Sacramento on September 1, 2026, lawmakers sent a sweeping package of employment bills to Governor Gavin Newsom's desk. The legislation fundamentally rewrites the rules for artificial intelligence in the workplace and establishes first-in-the-nation protections for workers experiencing menopause. Newsom has until September 30, 2026, to sign or veto the measures, which would impose strict new compliance obligations on companies operating in the state.[4]

The centerpiece of the technology package is Senate Bill 947, dubbed the "No Robo Bosses Act." Beginning July 1, 2027, the legislation prohibits employers from relying solely on an automated decision system (ADS) to discipline or terminate workers. The bill defines an ADS as any computational process derived from machine learning or statistical modeling that issues a score or recommendation to assist human discretionary decision-making.[3]

"If an employer primarily relies on an ADS output for such a decision, the employer must direct a human to corroborate the decision using the data collected or other relevant corroborating information," notes Jennifer B. Rubin, a member at the law firm Mintz. If the human reviewer cannot corroborate the algorithm's output, the employer is barred from using it for the termination. The bill also mandates that companies provide a written post-use notice to the affected employee at the exact time the disciplinary decision is communicated.[3]

Lawmakers also targeted the growing market for biometric monitoring with Assembly Bill 1883, which passed the Assembly on a 56-8 vote on August 30, 2026. The measure categorically prohibits employers from deploying AI-powered workplace surveillance tools to recognize or make inferences about an individual's emotional state. It similarly bans the collection of neural data—information generated by measuring the activity of an employee's central or peripheral nervous system—unless the tool is strictly used to ensure physical safety.[2][4]

"It seems like almost weekly, employers are introduced to new AI-driven workplace tools with ever-expanding capabilities," Danielle Ochs, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins, told HR Executive. Violations of AB 1883 carry civil penalties of up to $500 per incident, enforceable by the California Labor Commissioner or public prosecutors. A companion bill, AB 1331, further restricts the use of any workplace surveillance tools in restroom facilities, allowing employees the right to leave tracking devices behind when entering those areas.[2][4]

The legislature also moved to force transparency around AI-driven job losses through Senate Bill 951. The bill amends the California WARN Act to require a specific disclosure when a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is caused "in whole or in substantial part" by artificial intelligence. Employers must place the statement "This notice is for a technology displacement" prominently at the top of their standard 60-day advance notice, and identify the specific job functions being automated.[3][4]

Beyond technology, the legislature advanced Assembly Bill 1940, addressing a biological transition that affects half the workforce. The bill adds perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause, and related medical conditions to the Fair Employment and Housing Act's (FEHA) definition of "sex." This statutory change makes discrimination, harassment, or the failure to accommodate those specific conditions explicitly unlawful in California workplaces.[4][7]

If enacted, AB 1940 requires the California Civil Rights Department to update its mandatory workplace posters by July 1, 2027, to reflect the new protected categories. A related harmonization bill, AB 2563, ensures that these menopause-related conditions are uniformly recognized across dozens of California state codes dealing with sex discrimination.[4]

The fate of the package now rests with Newsom, whose record on AI regulation is mixed. In October 2025, he vetoed SB 7, an earlier iteration of the automated decision systems bill, citing concerns over its pre-use notice requirements. However, lawmakers adjusted SB 947 to require post-use notice instead, hoping to secure his signature. If he takes no action by the September 30 deadline, the bills automatically become law.[2][3]