For employers, human resources leaders, and staffing companies that use automated tools in discipline and termination decisions, new state AI statutes may reach further than their titles suggest.
Broad definitions and undefined terms leave compliance teams unsure which tools and decisions are covered.
In an article titled "4 Looming Questions About Calif.'s New Workplace AI Laws," Law360 Employment Authority examined open questions around recently enacted California laws on AI in the workplace, including S.B. 947, known as the No Robo Bosses Act. Adam S. Forman, Member of the Firm of Epstein Becker Green and counsel to employers on workplace technology, automated decision systems, and employment compliance, discussed how the statutes may apply in practice.
Adam noted that S.B. 947 does not define what it means for an employer to rely "solely" on an automated decision system, and he expects significant litigation over the term. He also addressed who must comply. Because the definition of "employer" extends to indirect control over wages, hours, or working conditions, staffing agency customers could face obligations as co-employers.
Adam cautioned that AI tools tied to attendance or performance may already feed into disciplinary processes without employers realizing it. A vendor that analyzes time cards, for example, could affect how attendance points are assigned.
"It's going to really come into play when you have specific functions that you've automated as an employer that touch discipline that you might not even think about," Forman said.
With the No Robo Bosses Act taking effect in July, Adam advised California employers to begin preparing now.
Get in Touch
To discuss how California's new AI laws may affect your organization's use of automated decision systems in discipline, termination, and staffing arrangements, contact Adam Forman at aforman@ebglaw.com.
