AI is intertwined in almost every job, from recruiting job seekers to evaluating employee performance. But a new California bill will revolve around how much power is allowed to have in the office.
this”No robot boss”also known as SB 7, Written by California lawmakers Sade Elhawary and Isaac Bryan, launched in March, introduced by state Senator Jerry McNerny. The bill is endorsed by organized labor, including the California Federation of Trade Unions (a branch of AFL-CIO).
This requires human supervision when it comes to AI involvement in promoting, demoting, firing or disciplining workers. It will also block LLM from accessing personal information about workers, including immigration stations, religious beliefs or health care history. It will forbid the use of AI to predict future workers’ behavior, resulting in negative actions against them.
“The bill will be primary because it imposes significant restrictions on the use of AI in the workplace.” wealth. “This will require businesses to carefully study their AI systems, including regular audits, and ensure they use them transparently and comply with state regulations.”
California isn’t the only move to regulate AI in the workplace; more than 30 states are actively studying their own legislation, According to law firm Fisher Phillips. Colorado First state Directly solve algorithmic discrimination in work in 2024. State legislationThe system, to come into effect in 2026, introduces the “high-risk” AI system that plays or plays a role in the major decisions of employees. Employers in the state must do it too Annual Impact Assessmenttelling employees whether they are using high-risk AI systems and giving workers a chance to appeal if AI makes a detrimental decision for them.
But the looming state legislation is a long-term discussion A decade of federal suspension According to state laws that regulate AI. Part of Trump’s “Big and Beautiful Bills,” a budget settlement plan, the paused version is included in the political headlines, but Earlier this weekenable AI legislation to snap up the future.
“The biggest concern is the contradictory directions about AI regulations, especially California,” said Danielle Ochs, an attorney and shareholder of San Francisco-based Ogletree Deakins.
Some lawyers warn that the California bill could mean huge costs for businesses. This includes reviewing its AI tools to determine if the bill is covered by the bill, working with suppliers, modifying policies, notifying employees and maintaining records, according to Jason Murtagh, shareholder and attorney of Buchanan Ingersoll & Ruoney in San Diego. He also hopes to see an increase in litigation for employees and job seekers.
“Many businesses may seek to slow down rollouts or eliminate the use of AI and automation systems, at least before some litigation against the new bill,” he told him. wealth.
Spencer Hamer, an attorney and shareholder of Irvine’s FBFK Law, believes the burden of litigation will be particularly heavy for smaller businesses. “Big companies will at least have the resources to try to get legal compliance,” he said. “But for small employers, they will have to often find out what they have done or are incorrect through litigation.”
However, Angelina Evans, an attorney for Seyfarth Shaw’s Los Angeles office, said she has been advising clients for years to build an AI governance team to see the data provided by these tools are consistent with what they expect and to investigate whether there are differences. The bill appears to be an extension of this line of thinking, she said.
“The purpose of these laws is really to provide transparency,” Evans said. “And (protect) people who may have their own rights have been violated and they are not even aware of it.”
