Remote work is common. Many California based companies have employees in other states. But does the California Labor Code cover those employees as though they were living and working in the state? On July 30, 2026, the California Court of Appeal concluded that California employment laws, which may have essentially prohibited the Company from terminating the employee, did not cover a Utah-based worker.
Saberin v. Alation: No Sufficient California Connection
California Labor Code Section 432.7 generally bars employers from using an employee’s non-conviction arrest history to fire them or make other employment decisions. Likewise, California Government Code Section 12952 makes it unlawful for most employers to consider non-conviction arrests when conducting background checks in connection with an employment application.
In Saberin, a California software company fired a Utah-based remote employee after he was arrested while on vacation in Florida. The criminal case was eventually dismissed and the employee filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination based on the California laws. Relying on sections 432.7 and 12952, he argued the California company unlawfully terminated him by considering his non-conviction arrest in the termination decision.
The Court of Appeal determined that neither California statue applied to the Utah employee. The Court first explained that California law includes a presumption against extraterritorial application of its law. Next, the Court reasoned that the two statutes were intended to cover worker and employer conduct within the state, and refused to extend their protection to non-California workers because the facts showed that the unlawful conduct at issue had no sufficient connection to California because:
- The employee lived and worked in Utah
- His immediate supervisor was in Washington
- The arrest occurred in Florida
- The termination decision took place in Illinois
The fact that the Company was headquartered in California, and that the Company’s California-based HR staff made the termination decision, was insufficient to extend the California legal protections to cover this remote worker.
Takeaway
While Saberin was undoubtedly a favorable decision for California employers, companies should still exercise caution before making decisions about remote workers that may conflict with California employment laws. In evaluating potential liability, employers must consider the employee’s connections to the state, including their location, where the decision-makers are located, and the connection between the conduct at issue and the state of California. California’s statutory protections may still apply where the challenged conduct has a sufficient connection to the state.
The Saberin decision highlights just one of the many legal questions that can arise when California employers manage employees working outside the state. Our upcoming webinar, “Remote Work Reality: Managing California Employees in 2026,” on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, from 10:00–11:15 a.m. PT, will explore the broader compliance landscape for remote and hybrid work and provide practical guidance for California employers navigating these evolving issues.
