AI Hiring and Firing Laws by US State: The 2026 Table

On September 30, 2026, California’s governor signed SB 947, which stops employers from disciplining or firing a worker on the word of an automated system alone. Its duties start on July 1, 2027. It is the newest of 13 enacted rules on AI in hiring, discipline and firing that we found across six states and New York City, and this page lists each one from the statute or the regulator’s own text.

An automated decision system, or ADS, is any software that scores, ranks or recommends people, from a résumé screener to a productivity tracker. Under SB 947, chaptered as Chapter 859 of 2026, an employer may not rely only on such a system when deciding to discipline or dismiss someone. Where it relies mainly on the system’s output, a person has to check that output against other evidence, such as supervisor reviews, personnel files, the worker’s own output or witness interviews. If the output cannot be checked, or proves inaccurate, it cannot be used.

The employer must also give a written, plain-language notice at the time of the decision saying a system was mainly relied on and a person corroborated it. Workers can ask for a description of their own data the system used. The law has no size threshold and covers public employers and labour contractors. The bill states that it “shall become operative on July 1, 2027”.

The governor signed three other workplace AI bills the same day. SB 951 requires a mass-layoff notice to say when AI or automation caused the layoff, under the heading “This notice is for a technology displacement”. AB 1883 bars AI surveillance tools that infer a worker’s emotions or collect neural data, with penalties of up to $500 per violation; it governs monitoring rather than hiring or firing, so it sits outside the table. AB 1331, on workplace surveillance, was not reviewed for this page.

Rows run in the order the obligations start, so the table doubles as a timeline. Only enacted statutes, adopted regulations and local laws are included. Bills still in progress are covered in section five.

Two patterns stand out. The early laws, in New York City, Illinois and Maryland, target hiring tools and ask for consent, notice or an audit. The newer ones reach further into the job: Illinois covers discipline and discharge, California’s SB 947 is aimed squarely at them, and Connecticut’s Public Act 26-15 requires notice before any covered decision from October 2027.

Penalties vary more than the duties do. Texas has the largest figures, but they need proof of intent to discriminate. New York City’s are small per violation but count each day a tool is used. Two name no penalty at all; several others rely on existing discrimination remedies.

New York City’s enforcement page sets out the audit and notice rules the city enforces. Texas’s law, Colorado’s and Connecticut’s notice duties create no private right of action and leave enforcement to the state attorney general.

• “The Colorado AI Act starts June 30, 2026.” That date is no longer the one to plan for. Lawmakers first pushed it to June 30, 2026, then passed SB 26-189, signed on May 14, 2026, which repealed and re-enacted it as a narrower law on automated decisions. The new law, which drops the old impact-assessment and risk-programme duties, takes effect January 1, 2027.
• “SB 947 applies from January 1, 2027.” The bill is a non-urgency statute, but its own text sets the operative date at July 1, 2027.
• “Connecticut gives workers an explanation and a chance to correct their data.” Some legal summaries say so, but the enacted Public Act gives workers only a disclosure duty and a notice before the decision. Those explanation and correction rights are in Colorado’s law.

Bills still pending include a New York measure on statewide standards for automated hiring tools. A second New York bill, on reporting AI’s effect on hiring to the state labour department, passed both chambers according to legislative trackers; we could not confirm the governor’s action, so it is not in the table.

The common first step is an inventory: every tool that scores, ranks or flags people, which decisions it feeds and who reviews its output. Most of these laws ask some version of the same three questions, so one inventory serves all of them. Our guide to bias audits for smaller firms covers the audit side, and our HR team playbook covers where AI fits in recruiting. For the wider state-versus-federal picture, see our note on federal preemption. Teams that want the inventory and review process designed with them can start with our AI transformation service.