Committee advances multiple bills to limit workplace surveillance and protect worker data

Two related bills addressing employer surveillance and worker data protection were heard in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee.

AB 1221, introduced by Assemblymember Bridal, would prohibit use of certain invasive or unreliable surveillance technologies in the workplace, ban inferring protected characteristics (such as health or immigration status) from surveillance outputs, require employers to notify workers before using such tools, and bar employers and third parties from sharing or selling worker surveillance data beyond permissible uses. The bill would also require employers to produce corroborating human‑reviewed evidence before disciplining or terminating a worker based primarily on surveillance outputs.

Yvonne Fernandez of the California Federation of Labor Unions, a cosponsor, said current surveillance tools — including wearables with microphones, gait and facial recognition, and emotional‑recognition software — are in the market now and can yield biased, discriminatory outputs. Shane Guzman of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council and union cosponsors argued the bills are necessary to protect worker privacy, prevent automated discipline, and preserve human oversight. Support also came from the California Nurses Association, AFSCME California, California Professional Firefighters and other unions and worker groups.

Opponents raised operational and security concerns. Ashley Hoffman of the California Chamber of Commerce said some disclosure requirements as drafted could impose broad, unintended obligations, such as listing vendors and third‑party recipients for routine legal or administrative transfers, and urged alignment with existing enforcement bodies. Chris McCauley of the Los Angeles Area Chamber cautioned that prohibiting use of surveillance outputs in disciplinary decisions could, as written, prevent employers from using conventional evidence (for example, standard security camera footage) to respond to wrongdoing; he also highlighted concerns with a broad right to access and correction of surveillance data and with ‘‘authorized representative’’ access to worker records. The California Hospital Association said AB 1221 would, as drafted, limit hospitals’ ability to use security cameras and badge‑access logs in public and shared areas to protect patients and staff and could interfere with cybersecurity monitoring required under HIPAA and NIST frameworks. Many industry groups including the California Retailers Association, California Grocers Association, and business coalitions registered respectful opposition and asked for amendments.

A separate but related bill, AB 1331 (presented by Assemblymember Hawaii), would likewise expand privacy guardrails for worker surveillance, limit monitoring in private spaces and off‑duty locations, and restrict certain invasive tools. Supporters described similar harms and urged passage; opponents raised parallel operational and security concerns.

Both bills received substantial stakeholder testimony and were moved forward to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (motions recorded as passed). Committee members signaled willingness to continue negotiations to reconcile worker privacy protections with operational and security needs.

Votes at a glance: the committee moved AB 1221 and AB 1331 to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (motions recorded as passed in the hearing transcript).