Author: Partner Spencer Hamer, FBFK Law
California Remote Employee Laws: What Saberin v. Alation Means for Multistate Employers
In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal addressed an increasingly common question in today’s remote-work environment: when do California employment protections apply to employees who work entirely outside California for a California-based company? The case reached the Court of Appeal after an arbitrator ruled that California law did not apply to the plaintiff’s claims, and the employee sought to vacate the arbitration award. The Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed the arbitrator’s decision.
The employee alleged he was wrongfully terminated based on an arrest that did not result in a conviction, in violation of FEHA and Labor Code section 432.7. He argued that California law should apply because Alation was headquartered in California, a California-based HR professional provided input into the termination process, and one of the executives involved in the decision ordinarily worked from California, even though he was physically in Illinois when the decision was made. He also contended that refusing to apply California law under these circumstances would allow employers to avoid California employment protections simply by making employment decisions outside the state.
The employer responded that the facts overwhelmingly pointed away from California. The employee lived and worked exclusively in Utah, his supervisor worked remotely from Washington, the arrest occurred in Florida, and the individuals who actually made the termination decision were located in Illinois at the time. Although a California HR representative provided “input” and worked from California, the employer argued that her involvement was too attenuated to establish a sufficient California connection. The arbitrator agreed, characterizing the California connection as a “tenuous thread,” and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that these facts were insufficient to extend California’s protections to an employee with virtually no connection to the state.
The decision serves as a reminder that while California employment laws can have broad reach, courts will closely examine the specific factual connections between the employee, the alleged misconduct, and California before extending those protections to remote workers located elsewhere. For multistate employers, Saberin provides useful guidance that a California headquarters, standing alone, may not be enough to bring an out-of-state remote employee within the scope of California employment statutes.
