SB 947 No Robo Bosses Act Bars AI-Only Firing Decisions in California

Robo Firings, Human Harm, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress CACI Claims in California

Key Takeaways: SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026, bars California employers from relying only on automated decision systems (ADS) to fire or discipline workers, though it does not ban AI outright. Starting July 1, 2027, when an employer relies mainly on an ADS for such a decision, a human must review it and support it with other relevant information. Published summaries say the affected worker must also get written notice that an ADS was used. In Redondo Beach, California, enforcement runs mainly through the California Labor Commissioner and local public prosecutors, but the law also includes a private right of action that allows individual workers who suffered a violation to bring a civil action for damages directly under the act, in addition to relying on existing discrimination, retaliation, and public policy claims. The law does not create a new emotional distress claim, and intentional infliction of emotional distress CACI theories still face a high bar and workers’ compensation exclusivity limits. However, the required human review may create records showing what decision-makers knew, which can help prove that an AI-assisted firing was a cover for retaliation or discrimination.

A 30-year career should not end because an algorithm flagged a "productivity anomaly" the week after you asked for medical leave. California lawmakers have now written that idea into law. For people in Redondo Beach, California, whose employers use AI-driven performance tools, SB 947 changes how a firing decision has to be made and documented. It also raises new questions about what evidence may exist when a termination looks like retaliation dressed up as data.

man carrying briefcase walks toward California State Capitol building dome

What the No Robo Bosses Act Actually Requires

The law limits AI in discipline and termination decisions but does not ban it. As described in the No Robo Bosses Act announcement from Sen. Jerry McNerney’s office, SB 947 bars employers from relying only on ADS to fire or discipline workers and requires a human to oversee and check the result. The press release calls it the first law of its kind in the nation. Reporters and practitioners should check these descriptions against the chaptered bill text.

SB 947 adds new requirements to the California Labor Code. Commentators describe the core rule this way: if an employer relies mainly on an ADS for a discipline or firing decision, a human reviewer must back up the decision with other information. Reported examples include managerial evaluations, peer reviews, and personnel files. Employers have until July 1, 2027, to comply.

A Package of Workplace Technology Laws

SB 947 was not signed alone. According to an Ogletree analysis of the AI bills, the Governor also signed AB 1883 and AB 1331. AB 1883 bans AI monitoring tools that predict employees’ emotional states or collect neural data, and AB 1331 bans workplace surveillance in bathrooms. Together, these laws are an important part of the 2027 California employment laws that employers will need to plan for.

Who Enforces the Law

Enforcement runs through both public agencies and individual workers, according to the author’s office. The press release states that the California Labor Commissioner and local prosecutors enforce the law. The law also includes a private right of action, allowing workers who suffered a violation to bring a civil action for damages directly under the act. For most wrongfully terminated workers, related claims based on existing discrimination, retaliation, and public policy laws will often still matter alongside any direct claim under SB 947.

How a Redondo Beach Employee Might Be Affected

Consider a hypothetical senior operations manager in Redondo Beach with 30 years at a large logistics corporation. She earns well into six figures and has strong reviews. In fall 2027, she asks for medical leave for a serious health condition. Three weeks later, she is fired. Her employer says a workforce analytics platform ranked her in the "bottom performance band."

She has documents. She has emails approving her leave request, texts from her supervisor complaining about "coverage problems," and years of positive evaluations. Before SB 947, the employer might simply point to the software. Now that the law is in effect, if the employer relied mainly on the ADS, a human generally must have reviewed the result and backed it up with other information. That required review may create records showing who looked at the decision, what they considered, and whether her leave request came up.

The scenario shows why AI termination decisions in California can still lead to a disability discrimination, medical leave, or retaliation claim. Using an algorithm does not make an unlawful motive lawful. If the human reviewer knew about protected activity and approved the firing anyway, that knowledge could become central evidence. Results always depend on the specific facts.

Where Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress CACI Claims Fit In

California’s civil jury instructions, known as CACI, set out the elements a jury applies to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. In general, CACI No. 1600 asks whether the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, whether the defendant intended to cause emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of that probability, whether the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, and whether the conduct was a substantial factor in causing it. The bar is high. Ordinary personnel decisions, even harsh ones, usually do not meet it.

Workplace claims also face a major limit: workers’ compensation exclusivity. California courts have generally held that emotional distress caused by normal parts of employment, such as discipline or termination, falls within the workers’ compensation system. Courts have allowed some claims to go forward when the conduct goes beyond the normal risks of employment, such as discrimination, retaliation, or violations of fundamental public policy. Even then, results vary. Whether an intentional infliction of emotional distress CACI theory survives usually depends heavily on the facts and on how the claim connects to other unlawful conduct.

SB 947 does not create a new emotional distress claim. It may, however, affect the evidence. If an employer used an ADS as cover for firing someone who reported documented supervisor harassment, the records created by the required human review could help show intent. Courts may consider that kind of evidence when deciding whether conduct was outrageous enough to support the claim.

Common Challenges Under the New ADS Discipline Restrictions

Proving how an algorithm was used will often be the hardest part. Employers may describe AI tools as "advisory," which could lead to disputes over whether they relied mainly on the ADS. Many workers also do not know which systems their employer uses. Practical problems include:

  • Timing: The law applies starting July 1, 2027, so firings before that date generally fall under existing law only.
  • Opaque vendors: Third-party software providers may resist disclosing how their models work.
  • Rubber-stamp review: A human "reviewer" who only approves the ADS output may raise questions about whether real oversight happened.
  • Mixed motives: Employers may cite legitimate performance data alongside the ADS, which makes causation fact-intensive.
  • Agency and individual enforcement: Public agencies enforce SB 947, and the law also allows individual workers to bring a civil action for damages directly under the act, though related legal claims may still matter.

Practical Steps for Documenting Your Situation

Workers who suspect an AI-assisted firing was pretext should preserve evidence early. Keep copies of your own emails, texts, performance reviews, leave requests, and any written notice about ADS use, as long as you keep them in ways that follow company policy and the law. Write down dates of complaints and who received them. A carefully documented timeline often matters more than any single piece of evidence.

Learning what qualifies legally also helps. Our overview of what qualifies as wrongful termination explains the main theories California courts recognize. Wrongful termination involving AI generally still follows those same basic principles.

How Does This Impact Me?

Does SB 947 Apply If I Was Fired Before July 1, 2027?

Generally, no. The law’s requirements begin July 1, 2027, and it does not appear to apply to earlier decisions. You may still have claims under existing California discrimination, retaliation, and public policy laws, depending on your facts.

Does This Change My Deadline to File a Claim?

SB 947 does not appear to change existing filing deadlines. Before suing under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, you generally must file an administrative complaint with the Civil Rights Department, usually within three years, and get a right-to-sue notice. Other civil claims have their own, often shorter, statutes of limitations. Courts read tolling and discovery exceptions narrowly, so you should not assume an extension will apply.

Can I Sue Directly Under the No Robo Bosses Act?

Yes, in addition to related claims. SB 947 includes a private right of action, so workers who suffered a violation may bring a civil action for damages directly under the act. The law also authorizes enforcement by the Labor Commissioner and local prosecutors. Individual lawsuits may also rely on related claims, such as retaliation, disability discrimination, or intentional infliction of emotional distress theories.

What If an Algorithm Flagged Me After I Reported Harassment?

The timing may be significant evidence, though timing alone is often not enough. If you reported documented harassment by a supervisor and an AI tool later flagged you for discipline, the human review required by SB 947 may show what decision-makers knew. Talk to counsel before giving any statements to your employer.

Should I Ask My Employer Whether an ADS Was Used?

You may be entitled to notice under the new law. According to published summaries, workers fired or disciplined based mainly on an ADS must get written notice that it was used, a description of the data it relied on, and a human contact person. Asking in writing creates a record. However, how you approach your employer can affect your case, so getting advice first may be wise.

Accountability Still Requires a Human Decision

SB 947 sets a clear principle for California employers: when a career ends, a person has to be accountable for the decision. Starting in mid-2027, covered employers in Redondo Beach and across the state generally must provide human review whenever they rely mainly on an ADS for discipline or termination. They will also have to give affected workers notice. The law does not replace existing protections against discrimination and retaliation. Instead, it may create new records that show what employers knew and when they knew it.

For long-tenured, highly paid employees, documentation is usually what makes a claim provable. Emails, texts, leave requests, and records of ignored complaints still matter most. Whether the facts support a retaliation, discrimination, or emotional distress claim depends on the individual circumstances, and outcomes are never guaranteed.

If you believe an AI-assisted termination covered up retaliation or discrimination, you can get answers from attorneys familiar with California’s changing workplace laws. Kent | Pincin handles serious employment law matters in Redondo Beach involving disability discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Call [(310) 424-4991]((310) 424-4991) or contact us today to discuss whether your situation may be affected.