US state laws on AI in employment decisions: California and Illinois

What this guide covers

This guide reads three documents and uses only what they state. Each point names its source, and a point that a document does not make is left out. The question is what California's SB 947, the California Civil Rights Council's regulations, and Illinois HB 3773 require of employers that use AI in hiring, firing and other workplace decisions.

The three sources are different kinds of document. The SB 947 source is a press release from the office of the bill's author. The California regulations source is an announcement from the California Civil Rights Department. The Illinois source is the enrolled text of the law. Because of this, the Illinois section can follow the requirements closely. The two California sections can only repeat how their authors describe the measures. Where a document gives no detail, the sections below say so instead of filling the gap.

California SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026

The press release from Sen. Jerry McNerney's office, dated September 30, 2026, reports that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 947 and quotes the senator saying the signing ensures human oversight of AI in the workplace.

The release describes the following requirements for employers. First, it says SB 947 bars California employers from relying solely on AI systems, known as automated decision-making systems (ADS), to fire or discipline workers.

Second, the release says the law mandates human oversight and verification when employers use ADS to assist in termination and disciplinary decisions.

Third, the release lists a duty to tell workers, stating that employers must inform workers if they have used ADS in termination or disciplinary decisions.

On enforcement, the release says the provisions would be enforced by the labor commissioner, the attorney general or local prosecutors.

The release describes two kinds of decision only: firing and discipline. It does not say that SB 947 reaches hiring, promotion, pay or scheduling. It does not say what counts as sufficient human oversight or verification, what the notice to workers must contain, or when workers must receive it. It states no effective date and no penalty. It is a summary written by the bill's author and does not reproduce the bill text, so the exact statutory wording is not in the documents used here.

California Civil Rights Council regulations

The California Civil Rights Department's announcement, dated June 30, 2025, says the regulations were approved on June 27, 2025 and are set to go into effect on October 1, 2025.

The announcement says the newly approved regulations provide increased clarity on how existing antidiscrimination laws apply to the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The announcement frames the rules as applying existing law to new tools. It does not describe a separate AI statute.

On scope, the announcement says automated-decision systems are used in employment settings to facilitate a wide range of decisions related to job applicants or employees, including with respect to recruitment, hiring, and promotion.

The announcement then lists what the regulations aim to do. It says they aim to make it clear that using an automated-decision system may violate California law if it harms applicants or employees based on protected characteristics such as gender, race or disability.

It says they aim to ensure that employers and covered entities keep employment records, including automated-decision data, for at least four years.

It says they aim to affirm that automated-decision system assessments, including tests, questions or puzzle games that draw out information about a disability, may be an unlawful medical inquiry.

Finally, it says they add definitions for key terms, naming "automated-decision system," "agent" and "proxy."

The announcement is not the regulation text. It uses the phrase "aim to" for each item, and it does not quote the rule language. It gives no definition for "agent" or "proxy." It does not describe an audit, a bias test, or a notice to applicants.

Illinois HB 3773 (Public Act 103-0804)

HB 3773 is enrolled as Public Act 103-0804, and the text says the Illinois Human Rights Act is amended by changing Sections 2-101 and 2-102.

Section 2-101 adds a definition of artificial intelligence. The text says the term means a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers from its input how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments.

New language in Section 2-102, subdivision (L), titled "Use of artificial intelligence," covers recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure, and the terms, privileges or conditions of employment.

For those decisions, the text makes it a civil rights violation for an employer to use artificial intelligence that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes under the Article.

The same paragraph also bars an employer from using zip codes as a proxy for protected classes under the Article.

The text adds a notice duty. It makes it a civil rights violation for an employer to fail to provide notice to an employee that the employer is using artificial intelligence for the purposes described above.

On rules, the text says the Department shall adopt any rules necessary to implement and enforce the subdivision, including rules on when notice is required, the time period for it, and the means of giving it.

On timing, the enrolled text includes a Section 99 stating that the Act takes effect January 1, 2026.

The text provided does not itself state the form, timing or delivery method of the notice. The passage on rules refers only to "the Department," and the excerpt does not name which department. The subdivision does not set out a penalty, a testing duty, or a record-keeping duty.

What the documents leave open

The three documents agree on little beyond the subject. They differ in which decisions they name, in what they ask of employers, and in how much detail they give. These points are absent from all three:

• Penalties. None of the three gives a penalty amount.
• Audits and assessments. None requires a bias audit, an impact assessment, or testing of AI tools before use.
• Vendors. None says how an employer's duties apply when a vendor supplies the tool. The California announcement names "agent" as a defined term but does not give the definition.
• SB 947 timing. The press release does not state an effective date.
• Interaction. None discusses how the three measures apply together to an employer with workers in both states.

This guide does not interpret the measures beyond what the three documents state. The exact wording of SB 947 and the full text of the California regulations are not among the documents used here.