New York Opens Personnel Files to Workers and Raises Construction Call-In Pay; California Signs a Voluntary AI Audit Framework

The bottom line today

“At no cost to the employee.” Those five words in New York’s new Section 210-b of the Labor Law set the tone for the week [2]. Gov. Hochul signed it on September 9 along with a reporting-pay law for construction crews, and both add process and payroll cost for New York employers [1]. Hochul also asked for changes to the records law before it is fully settled, which is the right instinct [4]. In Sacramento, the same day brought a better model: a voluntary AI audit framework with no mandate attached [6, 7].

NY New York S3460: employees get their personnel files within five business days

What it does. S3460, by Sen. Gounardes and Assemblymember Gonzalez-Rojas, gives current and former employees the right to a copy of their personnel record within five business days of a written request, free [1, 2]. “Personnel record” covers any record identifying the employee that is used, or may be used, for decisions on qualifications, promotion, transfer, extra pay or discipline, including records a contractor holds [2]. The list runs from job applications and pay to performance reviews, written warnings and termination notices [2]. Employers must tell an employee within ten days of placing negative information in the file; the employee may add a written rebuttal, which travels with the record to any third party [2]. Files must be kept from hire through three years after separation [2]. The Attorney General enforces it, with fines of $500 to $2,500, and retaliation is barred, including threats to report immigration status [2].

Where it stands. The Senate passed it 38-21 on April 22, the Assembly passed it May 19, and Hochul signed it as Chapter 293 on September 9 [2]. It takes effect November 8 [4, 5].

Pratt’s read. The governor’s office notes that New York joins at least 17 other states with access rights, and Sen. Gounardes argues New Yorkers “deserve to know that their jobs and their rights are protected, no excuses” [1]. Seeing your own file is a reasonable ask. The cost is in the drafting. A record that “may be used” for a decision is a wide net for a company whose managers keep notes in email, shared drives and vendor software, and a five-business-day clock leaves little room to find all of it [2]. Employers can cap reviews at two a year, but reviews prompted by a negative-information notice do not count toward the cap [2]. There is no employee-count threshold. A 15-person shop has the same deadline as a bank.

Here is the part worth credit. Littler reports Hochul required a chapter amendment, to be passed once lawmakers return in January, clarifying that employers need not create files or new documents beyond what they keep, and that covered records are those used for hiring, retention, promotion, transfer, pay or discipline [4]. That would narrow the “may be used” problem. Until it passes, the signed text governs from November 8 [4]. Ogletree Deakins expects open questions on scope to be settled through Attorney General guidance or litigation [5].

NY New York S9843: the Construction Reporting Pay Act

What it does. S9843, by Sen. Ramos, adds Labor Law sections 224-g and 196-e [3]. A construction worker who reports for work at the employer’s request must be paid at least four hours, at the prevailing rate on covered public projects or at the promised hourly wage elsewhere (or the scheduled shift, if shorter) [3]. A shift canceled on less than 12 hours’ notice earns two hours of pay [3]. Before this law, the governor’s office says, reporting pay was four hours at minimum wage [1]. Where a posted prevailing rate already provides more generous reporting pay, that rate controls on public work [3].

Where it stands. The Senate’s recorded vote was 50-10 on June 4, and the bill was signed as Chapter 291 on September 9 [3]. It takes effect on the 90th day after becoming law, which by this column’s count is December 8 [3].

Pratt’s read. Ramos’s case is that construction workers “arrange their lives around the shifts they are promised, and their time has value” [1]. True, and most contractors would agree. But construction schedules move with inspections, deliveries and weather, and the text contains no exception for any of them [3]. A rain-out called at 9 p.m. for a 6 a.m. start costs two hours per worker. The bill moves call-in pay from minimum wage to the worker’s own rate, and on prevailing-wage work that rate is set well above the minimum [1, 3]. The sponsor memo lists no fiscal effect on the state, which is true and beside the point: the cost lands on contractors and, through bids, on owners, including public ones [3].

CA California SB 813 and AB 1405: a voluntary route to independent AI audits

What they do. SB 813, by Sen. McNerney, sets up what his office calls “a voluntary flexible framework” under the Government Operations Agency [6]. The agency is to establish Independent Verification Organizations that assess AI systems and models, set requirements for their expertise, methods and independence, and convene working groups on safety standards [6]. AB 1405, by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, creates a state registry for AI auditors with independence, transparency and integrity standards [7].

Where they stand. Gov. Newsom signed both on September 9 [7]. SB 813 takes effect January 1 [6].

Pratt’s read. This is the right shape for AI rules. Bauer-Kahan argues “We cannot expect industry to simply grade its own homework” [7]. The answer here is a market for credible outside auditors rather than a licensing regime, and California’s AI companies can choose whether to use it [6]. The governor’s office pairs the signing with a call for national rules, a fair point for firms selling into fifty states [7]. One caution for later: a voluntary certification can become an expectation in contracts and courtrooms. That is not in the bill, and should not be.

CA California SB 951: AI layoffs get a label on the Cal-WARN notice

What it does. SB 951 adds requirements to Cal-WARN notices when a mass layoff, relocation or termination results “in whole or in substantial part” from AI or automated technology, according to Mintz [9]. The notice would carry the line “This notice is for a technology displacement” and list the number, occupations and locations of affected workers, the job functions being automated and the category of technology [9]. The Employment Development Department would publish summaries [9].

Where it stands. Passed by the Legislature and on the governor’s desk [8].

Pratt’s read. Credit to the Legislature for cutting this bill down. In May, SB 951 would have required 90 days’ notice for AI-driven cuts of 25 workers or 25% of a workplace, barred employers with more than 100 workers from discharging affected staff without cause during the notice period, and given workers a right of first bid on open jobs [10]. The final version keeps the existing 60-day Cal-WARN framework [8]. What remains is a disclosure. Its weak spot, as Mintz notes, is that “substantial part” is undefined, which leaves employers guessing when a restructuring counts [9].

As this release noted on September 8, the companion SB 947, on AI-assisted firings, is also on the desk.

On the calendar

Gov. Newsom has until September 30 to act on SB 951 [8]. New York’s personnel records law takes effect November 8 [4, 5], and the construction pay law follows December 8 by this column’s count [3]. The chapter amendment to the records law must pass during the 2027 session [4]. SB 813 starts January 1 [6].