Congress protects doctors' right to override AI—and sue if fired for it
S. 2997 — Right to Override Act · Filed by Ed Markey (D-MA) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Oct 9, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill protects health care professionals from being fired, demoted, or retaliated against by their employers for overriding AI or clinical decision-support system (CDSS) outputs when they believe doing so is medically appropriate. It creates a private right of action allowing workers to sue employers for violations, establishes Department of Labor enforcement with civil penalties up to ~$77,000 per violation (or ~$770,000 for repeat violations), and bars employers from using forced arbitration or class-action waivers to block these claims.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a labor-law protection: it bars adverse employment actions and retaliation against clinicians who override AI/CDSS outputs, backed by DOL enforcement and private litigation rights. This is fundamentally a whistleblower-style protection for professional judgment, not a healthcare regulation or AI governance measure.
What the text implies
- The bill does not define 'consistent with the requirements under section 101,' which is not included in the provided text. This creates ambiguity about what overrides are actually protected—employers may argue only certain overrides qualify, narrowing the protection.
- Statutory damages ($5,000–$20,000 per adverse action, $10,000–$100,000 per retaliation) may incentivize settlements but could also lead to defensive hiring or reduced AI/CDSS deployment by covered entities, potentially affecting care delivery models.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
employment law firms (litigation and settlement work); labor unions (representing workers in disputes)