 Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Executive Order N-6-26, establishing a structured state framework to analyze and prepare for the economic effects of artificial intelligence (AI) automation on workers and businesses. California houses 33 of the world’s top private AI companies, making it a central hub for the technology's development. As AI tools increasingly integrate into everyday business operations, state policymakers are focusing on how this shift impacts the broader labor market.
The executive order does not create immediate mandates for private employers, but it directs state agencies to study the technology and recommend future policy changes. Under the order's timeline, the state plans to launch a public dashboard by August 2026 to track AI-related job shifts using unemployment data. By November 2026, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency is tasked with proposing updates to California's mass layoff laws, specifically the WARN Act, to account for workforce reductions triggered by technological displacement. State agencies are also instructed to research various economic models and retraining strategies to manage this transition. This includes exploring options for mandatory severance standards, and developing an "AI Playbook" to help the Employment Development Department modernize its job-training programs. The order also calls for a review of how unionized workplaces handle AI integration through collective bargaining agreements. Lauren Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here.
0 Comments
LAUREN TEUKOLSKY QUOTED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE ON THE GROWING USE OF AI IN LITIGATION5/18/2026  Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a May 18 article by the San Francisco Chronicle on the growing trend of California lawyers using artificial intelligence (AI) in litigation. Law firms are adopting AI technology to draft briefs, review filings, and generate citations saving time and money. AI is not perfect and tends to hallucinate legal cases or their content; a recent global survey found 957 cases where U.S. courts discovered that AI had produced hallucinated content, primarily in civil cases.
A simple fix to the AI hallucination problem is to have lawyers verify AI-generated content. The San Francisco Chronicle described Ms. Teukolsky’s use of the AI tool Deep Research to find citations she needed for an employment case and verify the findings in 10-15 minutes. Ms. Teukolsky explained that the results were “as good as a very competent attorney would produce,” but “an attorney would take at least a week” to complete this task. One potential consequence of this growing AI use is the replacement of legal support staff that aid attorneys in litigation. AI can replicate tasks traditionally performed by law clerks, legal assistants, and paralegals at a fraction of the cost. Ms. Teukolsky surmised, “It will cost jobs, paralegals, clerks.” Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. To read the article in its entirety, click here. If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here. California is leading the nation with new regulations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in employment practices. Starting October 1, 2025, employers must follow antidiscrimination rules when using AI systems to make decisions on hiring, firing, promotion, or performance evaluations. If an AI system demonstrates bias against a protected group, even unintentionally, it may violate state civil right protections. This addresses a growing concern that AI tools used in decision-making may amplify existing inequalities in the workplace.
A wide range of AI tools used by employers are covered by the new regulations, from resume screeners to automated applicant ranking systems. Employers are encouraged to test these tools regularly for biases and document active preventative measures taken to mitigate potential discrimination in their AI tools. These records must be preserved for four years. The bottom line is that employers must explain how employment decisions using AI tools are made with preventative measures in mind. For workers, these regulations provide a legal pathway to relief if they believe AI has been used to discriminate against them. For employers, the regulations create an incentive to conduct frequent bias testing and training as insurance against any lawsuits. Employers can raise evidence of anti-bias testing as an affirmative defense against AI discrimination lawsuits. Courts will have to weigh factors like the quality and timing of an employer’s bias testing, and whether any harmful results were addressed. Additional AI legislation, SB 7, is on Governor Newsom’s desk awaiting signature. The bill could restrict employers from using AI to make personnel decisions without human involvement. California agencies are considering additional AI regulations in housing, education, lending, and health care. Lauren Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here. |
AuthorLauren Teukolsky is the founder and owner of Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation. Archives
August 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation, represents clients throughout California. Ms. Teukolsky is admitted to practice in the State of California, as well as the United States Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Northern District of California and Central District of California. Disclaimer.
Copyright © 2017
Copyright © 2017