Organizations subject to frontier model safety statutes must implement internal anonymous reporting mechanisms for employees who believe the organization's activities present a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety, and must prohibit retaliation against employees who make such disclosures internally or to external authorities.
(d) An employer shall not retaliate or discriminate against a worker providing direct patient care based on both of the following: (1) The worker's override of, or request to override, the output of technology if, in the judgment of the worker acting in their scope of practice, such an override is appropriate for the patient, or as necessary to comply with applicable law, including civil rights law. (2) The worker's compliance with the output of technology if the technology was provided or approved by the worker's employer for patient care. (e) A worker who is subject to retaliation or discrimination in violation of this article has the right under this article to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner against an employer who retaliates or discriminates against the worker.
An employer shall not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against any worker for using or attempting to use their rights under this part, filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner, alleging a violation of this part, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this part, or any action taken by the worker to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of this part, or for exercising or attempting to exercise any right protected under this part.
An employer shall not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against any worker for using or attempting to use their rights under this part, filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner, alleging a violation of this part, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this part, or any action taken by the worker to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of this part, or for exercising or attempting to exercise any right protected under this part.
No employer, deployer, developer, labor organization or any other person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against, any applicant for employment or employee because such applicant or employee: (1) Filed a complaint, provided information or otherwise assisted in an investigation or proceeding concerning any alleged violation of sections 3 to 8 of this act; (2) Objected to or refused to participate in any activity that such applicant or employee reasonably believed to be in violation of sections 3 to 8 of this act; or (3) Exercised any rights granted under the provisions of sections 3 to 8 of this act.
An employer shall not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against any employee for using or attempting to exercise the employee's rights under this chapter, filing a complaint with the department alleging a violation of this chapter, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this chapter, or taking any action to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of this chapter.
An employee shall be protected from termination, disciplinary action, retaliation, or other adverse employment action for refusing to follow the output of an automated decision-making system if: (1) the employee exercises independent judgment and discretion in the employee's duties, or the employee's duties require State licensure, certification, or accreditation; (2) the employee notifies a supervisor or manager that the system's output may, in the employee's professional opinion, lead to harm, illegality, or an outcome contrary to the employer's goals, and the employer fails to correct the output; (3) the employee is engaging in concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid and protection; (4) the employee refuses to follow the output in good faith based on training, education, or experience; and (5) due to urgency, there is insufficient time for correction.
Sec. 14. An employer may not discriminate or retaliate, including through intimidation, threats, coercion, or harassment, against any covered individual: (1) for exercising or attempting to exercise any right provided under this chapter; or (2) because the covered individual or another individual acting at the request of the covered individual has: (A) filed a written or oral complaint to the employer or a federal, state, or local government entity of a violation of this chapter; (B) sought assistance or intervention with respect to a worker privacy related concern from the employer, a federal, state, or local government, or a worker representative; (C) instituted, caused to be instituted, or otherwise participated in any inquiry or proceeding under this chapter; (D) given, or is about to give, any information in connection with any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this chapter; or (E) testified, or is about to testify, in any inquiry or proceeding relating to any right provided under this chapter.
An employer shall not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or discriminate or retaliate, in any manner, against any worker for using or attempting to exercise his rights pursuant to this Part, filing a complaint with Louisiana Works alleging a violation of this Part, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this Part, or any action taken by the worker to invoke or assist in any manner for the enforcement of this Part, or for exercising or attempting to exercise any right protected pursuant to this Part.
a) An employee shall be protected from termination, disciplinary action, retaliation, or other adverse employment action for refusing to follow the output of an artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology if the following conditions are met: i) The employee holds independent judgment and discretion in executing their work duties, or the work duties to be performed by the employee require licensure or certification by the commonwealth as a condition of employment, independent accreditation by the employer; ii) The employee has notified asupervisor, manager, or their employer that the output from the artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology may, in the employee's professional opinion and/or educational or work related- experience, lead to harm of a natural person, damage to physical property, an illegal action, an action contrary to the licensure or certification requirements of the Federal government, commonwealth, or an applicable private licensing or certifying authority, or an outcome contrary to the goal of the employer, and the employer refused or otherwise failed to adjust the output; iii) The employee has refused to follow the output in good faith and with the knowledge or reasonable belief, based upon training, education, or experience, that the output would cause harm or have an adverse impact; and iv) Due to the urgency of the potential harm or adverse impact, there is not enough time for the output to be corrected through department action.
(1) A large developer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or an individual acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report to an appropriate federal or state authority, verbally or in writing, information that indicates that the large developer's activities pose a critical risk, unless the employee knows that the report is false.
(5) A large developer shall do both of the following: (a) Post notices and use other appropriate means to keep the large developer's employees informed of the employees' protections and obligations under this section. (b) Provide a reasonable internal process through which both of the following occur: (i) An employee may anonymously disclose information to the large developer if the employee believes in good faith that the information indicates the large developer's activities present a critical risk. (ii) A monthly update is given to the employee under subparagraph (i) regarding the status of the large developer's investigation of the disclosure and any actions taken by the large developer in response to the disclosure. (6) A large developer shall maintain the disclosures and updates provided under subsection (5)(b) for not less than 7 years after the date when the disclosure or update was created. Each disclosure and update must be shared with the officers and directors of the large developer who do not have a conflict of interest not less than once per quarter.
(c) An employer must not retaliate against a worker in any way for refusing to follow the output of an automated decision system when the worker has a reasonable, good-faith belief that doing so would cause harm or discrimination or otherwise violate a law or regulation.
Subdivision 1. Retaliation. An employer must not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against any worker for using or attempting to use the worker's rights under this section and sections 181.9922 to 181.9926, including but not limited to filing a complaint with the commissioner of labor and industry, alleging a violation, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation, taking any action to invoke or assist in enforcing these rights, or exercising or attempting to exercise any of these rights.
(c) An employer must not retaliate against a worker in any way for refusing to follow the output of an automated decision system when the worker has a reasonable, good-faith belief that doing so would cause harm or discrimination or otherwise violate a law or regulation.
Subdivision 1. Retaliation. An employer must not discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against any worker for using or attempting to use the worker's rights under this section and sections 181.9922 to 181.9926, including but not limited to filing a complaint with the commissioner of labor and industry, alleging a violation, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation, taking any action to invoke or assist in enforcing these rights, or exercising or attempting to exercise any of these rights.
(2) A frontier developer or large chatbot provider shall not take adverse action against or otherwise penalize an employee for disclosing information to the Attorney General, a federal authority, a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the reported issue, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses either of the following: (a) The frontier developer's or large chatbot provider's activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety or to the health or safety of a minor; or (b) The frontier developer or large chatbot provider has violated the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act. (3) A frontier developer or large chatbot provider shall not require an employee or applicant to waive or limit any protection granted under this section as a condition of continued employment or of applying for or receiving an offer of employment. Any agreement to waive any right or protection under the act is against the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable. (4) A frontier developer or large chatbot provider shall not retaliate, discriminate or take adverse action against an employee or applicant because the employee or applicant testifies, assists, or participates in an investigation, proceeding, or action concerning a violation of the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act.
(5)(a) A large frontier developer shall provide a reasonable internal process through which an employee may anonymously disclose information to the large frontier developer if the employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the large frontier developer's activities (i) pose a specific and substantial threat to the public health or safety or to the health or safety of a minor or (b) that the large frontier developer or large chatbot provider has violated the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act. Such internal process shall include providing a monthly update to the person who made the disclosure regarding the status of the large frontier developer's investigation of the disclosure and the actions taken by the large frontier developer in response to the disclosure. Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subsection, the disclosures and responses of the process required by this subdivision shall be shared with officers and directors of the large frontier developer at least once each quarter. (b) If an employee has alleged wrongdoing by an officer or director of the large frontier developer in a disclosure or response, subdivision (a) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to that officer or director.
(6) Upon violation of this section, an aggrieved employee or applicant may, in addition to any other available remedy, institute a civil action within one year after the date of the alleged violation or the discovery of the alleged violation, whichever is later. The employee or applicant shall file an action directly in the district court of the county where such alleged violation occurred. The district court shall file and try such case as any other civil action, and any successful complainant shall be entitled to appropriate relief, including temporary or permanent injunctive relief, general and special damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.
10. No employer or public entity shall discharge, or otherwise retaliate against an employee with respect to any terms and conditions of work, because the employee refused to follow the output of an AEDS, ABSDS, or other artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology, if the following conditions are met: a. the employee holds independent judgment and discretion in executing their work duties, or the work duties performed by the employee require licensure or certification by the State as a condition of employment, or independent accreditation by the employer or public entity; and b. (1) the employee has notified a supervisor, manager, or other agent of the employer or public entity that the employee has made, in good faith and with the knowledge or reasonable belief based upon professional opinion or educational or work related experience, a determination that the output from the AEDS, ABSDS, or other artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology is likely to result in harm to an employee, service beneficiary, or other individual, damage to physical property, an illegal action, or an action contrary to the licensure or certification requirements of the federal government, the State, or other applicable private licensing or certifying authority which may result in a revocation or suspension of the employee's licensure or certification, but the employer or public entity, refused or otherwise failed to adjust the output without providing a reasonable written explanation documenting its reasons for not making an adjustment; or (2) the employee has refused to follow the output in good faith and with the knowledge or reasonable belief, based upon professional opinion or educational or work-related experience that the output would cause harm or have an adverse impact, and due to the urgency of the potential harm or adverse impact, there is not enough time for the output to be corrected through action of the employer or public entity.
No employer or public entity, vendor, or contractor acting on behalf of the employer or public entity shall: l. Make an employment-related decision which adversely affects an employee or applicant for employment, or an action which adversely affects a service beneficiary, in retaliation against the employee, applicant, or beneficiary for disclosing, or filing a complaint with a State agency, for a violation by the employer or public entity of any provision of this act, or taking an adverse action in retaliation against the employee, applicant or service beneficiary for exercising any rights provided by this act.
A large developer or a contractor or subcontractor of a large developer shall not prevent an employee from disclosing, or threatening to disclose, or retaliate against an employee for disclosing or threatening to disclose, information to the large developer or the attorney general, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the large developer's activities pose an unreasonable or substantial risk of critical harm, regardless of the employer's compliance with applicable law. 2. An employee harmed by a violation of this section may petition a court for appropriate temporary or preliminary injunctive relief.
A large developer shall inform employees of their protections, rights and obligations under this article within ninety days of the effective date of this article or of becoming a large developer, whichever is later, upon commencement of employment, and by posting a notice thereof. Such notice shall be posted conspicuously in easily accessible and well-lighted places customarily frequented by employees.
1. Developers and/or deployers of high-risk AI systems shall not: (a) prevent any of their employees from disclosing information to the attorney general, including through terms and conditions of employment or seeking to enforce terms and conditions of employment, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information indicates a violation of this article; or (b) retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to the attorney general pursuant to this section. 2. An employee harmed by a violation of this article may petition a court for appropriate relief as provided in subdivision five of section seven hundred forty of the labor law. 4. Each developer and deployer shall provide a reasonable internal process through which an employee may anonymously disclose information to the developer or deployer if the employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the developer or deployer has violated any provision of this article or any other law, or has made false or materially misleading statements related to its risk management policy and program, or failed to disclose known risks to employees, including, at a minimum, a monthly update to the person who made the disclosure regarding the status of the developer's or deployer's investigation of the disclosure and the actions taken by the developer or deployer in response to the disclosure. 5. This section does not limit protections provided to employees under section seven hundred forty of the labor law.
3. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems shall provide a clear notice to all of their employees working on such AI systems of their rights and responsibilities under this article, including the right of employees of contractors and subcontractors to use the developer's internal process for making protected disclosures pursuant to subdivision four of this section. A developer or deployer is presumed to be in compliance with the requirements of this subdivision if the developer or deployer does either of the following: (a) at all times post and display within all workplaces maintained by the developer or deployer a notice to all employees of their rights and responsibilities under this article, ensure that all new employees receive equivalent notice, and ensure that employees who work remotely periodically receive an equivalent notice; or (b) no less frequently than once every year, provide written notice to all employees of their rights and responsibilities under this article and ensure that the notice is received and acknowledged by all of those employees.
1. A developer or deployer may not: (a) discriminate or retaliate against an individual (including by denying or threatening to deny the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities in relation to a consequential action) because the individual exercised any right, refused to waive any such right, raised a concern about a consequential action under this article, or assisted in any investigation or proceeding under this article; or (b) directly or indirectly, discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an individual for raising a concern, reporting or attempting to report a violation of this article, or cooperating in any investigation or proceeding under this article.
Developers and/or deployers of high-risk AI systems shall not: (a) prevent any of their employees from disclosing information to the attorney general, including through terms and conditions of employment or seeking to enforce terms and conditions of employment, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information indicates a violation of this article; or (b) retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to the attorney general pursuant to this section.
Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems shall provide a clear notice to all of their employees working on such AI systems of their rights and responsibilities under this article, including the right of employees of contractors and subcontractors to use the developer's internal process for making protected disclosures pursuant to subdivision four of this section. A developer or deployer is presumed to be in compliance with the requirements of this subdivision if the developer or deployer does either of the following: (a) at all times post and display within all workplaces maintained by the developer or deployer a notice to all employees of their rights and responsibilities under this article, ensure that all new employees receive equivalent notice, and ensure that employees who work remotely periodically receive an equivalent notice; or (b) no less frequently than once every year, provide written notice to all employees of their rights and responsibilities under this article and ensure that the notice is received and acknowledged by all of those employees.
Each developer and deployer shall provide a reasonable internal process through which an employee may anonymously disclose information to the developer or deployer if the employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the developer or deployer has violated any provision of this article or any other law, or has made false or materially misleading statements related to its risk management policy and program, or failed to disclose known risks to employees, including, at a minimum, a monthly update to the person who made the disclosure regarding the status of the developer's or deployer's investigation of the disclosure and the actions taken by the developer or deployer in response to the disclosure.
A large developer or a contractor or subcontractor of a large developer shall not prevent an employee from disclosing, or threatening to disclose, or retaliate against an employee for disclosing or threatening to disclose, information to the large developer or the attorney general, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the large developer's activities pose an unreasonable or substantial risk of critical harm, regardless of the employer's compliance with applicable law. 2. An employee harmed by a violation of this section may petition a court for appropriate temporary or preliminary injunctive relief.
A large developer shall inform employees of their protections, rights and obligations under this article within ninety days of the effective date of this article or of becoming a large developer, whichever is later, upon commencement of employment, and by posting a notice thereof. Such notice shall be posted conspicuously in easily accessible and well-lighted places customarily frequented by employees.
(a) An employee shall be protected from termination, disciplinary action, retaliation, or other adverse employment action for refusing to follow the output of an artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology if the following conditions are met: (1) The employee holds independent judgment and discretion in executing their work duties, or the work duties to be performed by the employee require licensure or certification by the state, as a condition of employment, or independent accreditation by the employer; (2) The employee has notified a supervisor, manager, or their employer that the output from the artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology may, in their professional opinion and/or educational or work related- experience, lead to the harm of a natural person, damage to physical property, an illegal action, an action contrary to the licensure or certification requirements of the federal government, state, or an applicable private licensing or certifying authority, or an outcome contrary to the goal of the employer, and the employer refused or otherwise failed to adjust the output; (3) The employee has refused to follow the output in good faith and with the knowledge or reasonable belief, based upon training, education, or experience, that the output would cause harm or have an adverse impact; or (4) Due to the urgency of the potential harm or adverse impact, there is not enough time for the output to be corrected through department action.
(a) No employee shall be penalized by an employer in any way as a result of any action on the part of an employee to seek their rights under the provisions of this chapter. (b) Any employer who discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has made a complaint to the attorney general or any other department, agency, or person, or assists in any investigation under this chapter, or has instituted, or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings, commits a violation of this section and shall be subject to penalties as provided in title 28.
(a) An employee shall be protected from termination, disciplinary action, retaliation, or other adverse employment action for refusing to follow the output of an artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology if the following conditions are met: (1) The employee holds independent judgment and discretion in executing their work duties, or the work duties to be performed by the employee require licensure or certification by the state, as a condition of employment, or independent accreditation by the employer; (2) The employee has notified a supervisor, manager, or their employer that the output from the artificial intelligence system, automated decision system, algorithm, or other similar technology may, in their professional opinion and/or educational or work related- experience, lead to the harm of a natural person, damage to physical property, an illegal action, an action contrary to the licensure or certification requirements of the federal government, state, or an applicable private licensing or certifying authority, or an outcome contrary to the goal of the employer, and the employer refused or otherwise failed to adjust the output; (3) The employee has refused to follow the output in good faith and with the knowledge or reasonable belief, based upon training, education, or experience, that the output would cause harm or have an adverse impact; or (4) Due to the urgency of the potential harm or adverse impact, there is not enough time for the output to be corrected through department action.
(k) Retaliation prohibited. An employer shall not discharge or in any other manner retaliate against an employee who exercises or attempts to exercise the employee's rights under this section. The provisions against retaliation set forth in subdivision 495(a)(8) of this subchapter shall apply to this section.
(a) Developer-employers and deployer-employers of automated decision systems used in consequential decisions shall not: (1) prevent an employee from disclosing information to the Attorney General, including through terms and conditions of employment or seeking to enforce terms and conditions of employment, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information indicates a violation of this subchapter; or (2) retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subsection.
(b) Developer-employers and deployer-employers of automated decision systems used in consequential decisions shall provide a clear notice to all employees working on automated decision systems of their rights and responsibilities under this subchapter, including the right of employees of contractors and subcontractors to use the developer's internal process for making protected disclosures pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. A developer-employer or deployer-employer is presumed to be in compliance with the requirements of this subsection if the developer-employer or deployer-employer does either of the following: (1) at all times: (A) posts and displays within all workplaces maintained by the developer-employer or deployer-employer a notice to all employees of their rights and responsibilities under this subchapter; (B) ensures that all new employees receive equivalent notice; and (C) ensures that employees who work remotely periodically receive an equivalent notice; or (2) not less frequently than once every year, provides written notice to all employees of their rights and responsibilities under this subchapter and ensures that the notice is received and acknowledged by all of those employees.
(c) Each developer-employer shall provide a reasonable internal process through which an employee may anonymously disclose information to the developer if the employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the developer has violated any provision of this subchapter or any other law, or has made false or materially misleading statements related to its safety and security protocol, or failed to disclose known risks to employees, including, at a minimum, a monthly update to the person who made the disclosure regarding the status of the developer's investigation of the disclosure and the actions taken by the developer in response to the disclosure.