Coverage scope
- Human corroboration of automated outputs
- Review and appeal provisions
- Vendor documentation and employer responsibilities
- Enacted safeguards versus proposed duties
CURRENT COVERAGE
9 records · 8 articles
Relevant jurisdictions: California, Colorado, New York, Texas, Vermont, Washington.
REGULATORY RECORDS
CCPA Risk Assessment and Automated Decisionmaking Technology Regulations
Final CCPA regulations establish risk-assessment requirements for specified high-risk processing beginning in 2026 and notice, access, opt-out, and appeal provisions for covered ADMT used in significant decisions beginning January 1, 2027.
Related coverage: California Enacts New Workplace AI Rules: What SB 947 and AB 1883 Require →California SB 947 — Employment: Automated Decision Systems
SB 947 limits employer reliance on automated decision systems in employee discipline and termination and adds human-corroboration, postuse-notice, and employee-data-description requirements when reliance is primary.
Related coverage: California SB 947: What Does Human Review Actually Require Before AI-Driven Discipline or Termination? →Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Act
Colorado repealed and reenacted its automated-decision framework. The replacement law applies to consequential decisions made on or after January 1, 2027, including covered employment decisions; the October 6, 2026 interim draft revises the August 11 proposed implementing rules and is not final.
Related coverage: If a staffing firm uses AI to screen applicants, who is responsible under Colorado’s proposed rules? →California SB 7 — Employment: Automated Decision Systems
SB 7 proposed notice, access, correction, appeal, and human-oversight requirements for employer use of automated decision systems. The Governor vetoed the bill on October 13, 2025; it did not become law.
Related coverage: California AI Hiring Compliance in 2026: How FEHA and CCPA Automated Decision Rules Fit Together →New York Boundaries on Technology Act
The BOT Act proposes impact assessments, notice, restrictions on electronic monitoring and automated employment decision tools, data-access rights, and meaningful human oversight. The official Senate record currently lists S 10147 as active in the Senate Labor Committee.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Vermont H.340 — Automated Decision Systems
H.340 proposes a broad framework for developers and deployers of automated decision systems used for consequential decisions, including employment decisions. The official status page lists the bill in the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development and shows no enacted act.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Washington HB 1672 — Technology Used by Employers in the Workplace
HB 1672 proposes restrictions and procedural protections for employer electronic monitoring and automated decision systems. After a substitute received a do-pass recommendation, the bill was referred to House Appropriations and retained in that status for the 2026 session.
Related coverage: State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance →Connecticut SB 435 — Automated Decision Systems Protections for Employees
SB 435 proposed a broader employment automated-decision framework, including explanations, data correction, human review, bias audits, recordkeeping, collective-bargaining provisions, and a civil action. The official history ends with an April 20, 2026 favorable report and Senate calendar placement; the regular session adjourned May 6 without enactment.
Related coverage: Connecticut’s AI Employment Law Is Now Partly in Effect: What Employers Need to Know →Texas SB 1964 — Public-Sector AI Governance
SB 1964 requires public-sector AI inventories, risk and governance standards, impact assessments for heightened-scrutiny systems, training, and related oversight for covered governmental entities.
LATEST COVERAGE
CA
California SB 947: What Does Human Review Actually Require Before AI-Driven Discipline or Termination?
The enacted law requires corroboration when an employer primarily relies on an automated output. It leaves the threshold for primary reliance, and several details of the review, unresolved.
CO
If a staffing firm uses AI to screen applicants, who is responsible under Colorado’s proposed rules?
A new staffing example puts Deployer duties on the covered employer that commissions an automated shortlist and uses it to choose whom to hire. Other agency decisions still require their own analysis.
CA
California Enacts New Workplace AI Rules: What SB 947 and AB 1883 Require
California's new workplace-AI laws add human-review safeguards for certain automated discipline and termination decisions and restrict AI-enabled emotional-state inference and neural-data collection.
CA
California AI Hiring Compliance in 2026: How FEHA and CCPA Automated Decision Rules Fit Together
California employers must separate two overlapping systems: FEHA rules that already govern discriminatory use of automated employment tools, and final CCPA regulations that impose current risk-assessment duties before ADMT notice and individual-rights requirements begin in 2027.
NY · CO · CA · IL · MD · MA · NJ
AI Bias Audits: One-Time Compliance or Continuous Monitoring?
Current law does not impose one universal monitoring model. New York City uses a rolling one-year audit rule; other regimes rely on discrimination law, notices, records, documentation, or human review—and governance programs often go further.
CO
Colorado AI Employment Law: What Employers Need to Know Before 2027
Colorado has enacted a replacement framework for automated decisions, but its core duties apply to decisions made on or after January 1, 2027—and the Attorney General’s implementing rules are still proposed.
CA · CO · CT · IL · MD · MA · NJ · NY · VT · WA
State AI Employment Laws: What’s Law, What’s Pending, and What’s Guidance
The workplace-AI rulebook is not one category of law. It is a mix of operative statutes and regulations, future-effective frameworks, city-level requirements, pending bills, and agency interpretations of existing law.
CO
Colorado resets its automated-decision framework for 2027
SB 26-189 creates documentation, notice, data-access, correction, and human-review duties for covered consequential decisions, including employment decisions.