Software Helped Decide Your Discipline or Firing? What California’s SB 947 Lets You Ask For

Starting July 1, 2027, a California employer cannot rely solely on an automated decision system when it disciplines or fires you. A person has to check the result against other information, you have to get a separate written notice if software was the primary basis for the decision, and you have the right to ask for a description of your own data that the system used. This guide is for the employee who has been flagged by a tool and needs to know what to ask for, in what order.

I am Mac Malbrough. I hold a J.D. and an MS-HRM, I am not an attorney, and this is general information, not legal advice. I read SB 947, Chapter 859 of the Statutes of 2026, on the California Legislative Information site on November 4, 2026. My earlier post on the No Robo Bosses Act explains the law for employers. This one is written for the person on the receiving end.

What does SB 947 say about software and discipline?

It adds a new part to the Labor Code, starting at Section 1520, with four rules that matter to you:

• An employer cannot rely solely on an automated decision system when it makes a disciplinary or termination decision (Section 1522(b)(1)).
• If the employer primarily relies on the system’s output, it must direct a human to corroborate the decision using the data behind the output or other relevant information (Section 1522(b)(2)).
• If the employer cannot corroborate the output, or the human reviewer concludes it is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the employer cannot use it to discipline or fire you (Section 1522(c)).
• You may request, and the employer must provide, a meaningful, objective description of your own data the system used (Section 1522(d)).

The law also bars an employer from using one of these systems to prevent compliance with employment laws, to infer your protected status, or to predict and take adverse action against you for using your legal rights.

When does it start, and who does it protect?

The new part becomes operative on July 1, 2027 (Section 1526.7). It protects an “employee,” which the bill defines as any person employed by an employer. It does not mention applicants, and I did not find a rule that extends these protections to people who have not been hired. The definition of employer is broad and reaches labor contractors and government employers. The bill also says it does not preempt a city or county ordinance that gives employees equal or greater protection.

If something happens to you before July 1, 2027, this law does not apply to it. Other California rules may, which is a conversation for an employment attorney.

What counts as an automated decision system?

The bill defines it as a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, such as a score, classification or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially affects people. It says the term does not include a spam filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, a calculator, a database, a dataset or another compilation of data.

In practice, a productivity score, an attendance risk flag, a customer-rating ranking or a tool that scans your messages for policy violations could meet the definition if it feeds a discipline or termination decision. A spreadsheet of hours does not. If you are unsure whether a tool at your job counts, ask what it does with your data and how its output was used. My guide to AI hiring tools and California civil rights rules covers the neighboring rules for hiring.

What must the employer do before it disciplines or fires you?

It has to put a human in the loop, and the human has to check something real. The bill lists examples of corroborating information: supervisory or managerial evaluations, personnel files, your work product, peer reviews and witness interviews. A manager who reads the dashboard and agrees with it has not corroborated anything. A manager who also reviews your actual work, your file and statements from people who saw the events has.

If the human cannot corroborate the output, or finds it wrong, incomplete or misleading, the employer is barred from using it as the basis for the decision. In a civil action or proceeding, once it is shown that a system was used to make a disciplinary or deactivation decision, the burden shifts: the employer has to show it did not primarily rely on the system, or that it complied with the corroboration and notice rules.

What notice must you receive?

An employer that primarily relied on a system for a discipline or termination decision must give you a written “postuse” notice at the time it tells you the decision (Section 1524). The notice has to be:

• Plain language, and a separate, stand-alone communication, not a paragraph inside a termination letter.
• In the language the employer normally uses to communicate with employees.
• Delivered by a simple method such as email, a hyperlink or another written format.

It has to say that the employer primarily relied on an automated decision system, that a human reviewed the decision and corroborated the output, who you can contact, how to get a description of your own data, and that the employer cannot retaliate against you for using your rights. If you are disciplined or fired and no separate notice arrives, write that down.

What should you request in writing, step by step?

Do these in order, and keep every piece of paper. Nothing in the text I read sets a deadline for your request, so make it promptly.

1. Save the notice, the discipline or termination message and the date and time you received each.
2. Send a written request to the contact person named in the notice, or to HR if none is named, by email so there is a date on it.
3. Use words close to these: “I am requesting a meaningful, objective description of my own data that was used by the automated decision system in the decision about my discipline or termination, under Labor Code Section 1522(d). Please also tell me who reviewed the decision, what other information they used to corroborate it, and the date the review took place.”
4. Save your own proof of your work for the period in question: emails, project files, ratings, thank-you notes and anything that contradicts the system’s output.
5. Write a dated timeline of what happened and who said what, while you remember it. Keep it on a personal device, not an employer system.
6. If you get no answer, or you are retaliated against for asking, contact the Labor Commissioner’s Office and talk to an employment attorney soon, because other deadlines may be running.

The employer may anonymize other people’s information when it provides your description, so do not expect to see a coworker’s data. What you are entitled to is a description of your own data and how it was used.

Can your employer retaliate for asking?

No. Section 1526 says an employer shall not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against an employee for using or attempting to use rights under this part, or for filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. Keep the timeline from step 5 current if anything about your treatment changes after you ask.

Who enforces SB 947, and what are the penalties?

The Labor Commissioner can investigate, order temporary relief and issue citations, and a public prosecutor can also enforce the law. In a civil action brought by either one, the court can order injunctive relief, including punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. An employer that violates the part is subject to a civil penalty of $500 per violation.

The sections I read name the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors as enforcers. I did not find a provision that lets an individual employee sue directly under this part. Whether another claim fits your situation depends on your facts, and that is exactly the question for an employment attorney. For related guidance on being pushed toward the exit, see my pieces on performance improvement plans and quiet cutting.

What should employers document to show human corroboration?

If you run a team, the burden of proof will fall on you, so build the record when the decision is made. For each discipline or termination where a tool contributed, keep one page that covers:

• The tool, the output it produced and the date.
• The name and role of the human who reviewed it and the date of the review.
• The other sources checked, such as evaluations, the personnel file, work product, peer reviews and witness interviews, with copies.
• The reviewer’s conclusion in their own words, including any reason the output was set aside.
• A copy of the separate notice and proof of the date and method it was delivered.
• A named person to receive an employee’s request for their data, and a plan to answer it.

Also list every tool that scores, ranks or flags employees, because you cannot comply for a tool you have not inventoried. My performance review and PIP documentation set is built for exactly this kind of record, at $129.

What should you do this week?

If you are an employee, find out which tools at your job score or monitor you, and ask HR in writing what they are. If you have already been disciplined, save every document today. If you want someone to go through the notice and your next steps with you, I offer a free consult through what is happening in your career, and the free live sessions cover new California laws each quarter. If you are an employer, build the one-page record above and the notice template before July 1, 2027.

If a complaint comes up while you review a decision, follow how to run a workplace investigation in seven steps.

For how this fits the wider change in HR work, see what happens to HR’s job when AI coordinates more of the work.

To build review into everyday AI use, see a safe prompt library for HR tasks.

Related reading: a plain-English glossary of AI terms for HR.

Sources

• SB 947 (McNerney), Chapter 859, Statutes of 2026, approved September 30, 2026, read November 4, 2026
• Labor Code Sections 1520 to 1526.7, as added by SB 947, in the chaptered text above

McKinley holds a J.D. but is not a licensed attorney. Articles here are general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, talk with an employment attorney.

Data current as of November 2026. Sources are linked where each figure appears.