Remote work has created an increasingly complicated question for California employers: If a company is headquartered in California, do California’s employee-friendly employment laws follow employees who live and work remotely in other states?

A new published California Court of Appeal decision provides some welcome guidance. The short answer: not necessarily.

In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the court held that two California employment statutes did not protect an employee who lived and worked remotely in Utah, even though his employer was headquartered in California and California-based personnel had connections to the termination decision.

The Case

Pejman Saberin worked remotely from Utah for Alation, Inc., a software company headquartered in California. In October 2023, Saberin was arrested in Florida while returning from vacation. Alation learned of the arrest through its own research and subsequently terminated his employment. The criminal case was later dismissed.

Saberin alleged that Alation violated two California statutes restricting employers’ use of arrest records that do not result in convictions: Government Code section 12952 and Labor Code section 432.7.

But nearly all of the relevant events occurred outside California. Saberin lived and worked in Utah. His direct supervisor worked in Washington. His arrest occurred in Florida. And the two executives who made the termination decision were physically in Illinois when they made it.

There were some California connections. Alation was headquartered in California. An HR employee working in California provided “input” into the termination decision. And one of the two ultimate decisionmakers normally worked remotely from California, although he was in Illinois when the decision was made.

The court concluded those connections were not enough.

California Law Does Not Automatically Follow Remote Employees

California law generally carries a presumption against applying its statutes outside the state. But the Court of Appeal emphasized that there is no single test for determining whether California employment law applies to a multistate employment relationship. Instead, courts must examine the particular statute at issue and determine what connections to California are sufficient to trigger its protections.

For the statutes at issue in Saberin, the court concluded that extending their protections to a non-California worker requires the allegedly unlawful conduct to have a sufficient connection to California.

Here, it did not.

The California HR employee’s “input” did not change the result. The arbitrator had found that involvement too tenuous, and the Court of Appeal explained that allowing any nonsubstantive input from a California employee to trigger California law would create an uncertain and potentially unworkable rule. Merely communicating the termination decision from California was also insufficient because the relevant allegedly unlawful conduct was the termination decision itself.

The court also rejected Saberin’s reliance on a California choice-of-law provision in his employment agreement. A contractual provision selecting California law, the court explained, incorporates California law—including its presumption against extraterritorial application. In other words, selecting California law does not automatically extend every California employment statute to employees working elsewhere.

What Should Employers Take Away?

Saberin is good news for California employers managing increasingly dispersed workforces. A California headquarters, standing alone, does not necessarily export California employment law to every remote employee across the country. And incidental involvement by California-based HR personnel may not be enough to change that conclusion.

But employers should not read Saberin as a blanket exemption from California law for out-of-state employees. The court emphasized that the analysis is statute-specific. Different California employment statutes may require different connections to the state. And California law may still protect an out-of-state worker when the allegedly unlawful employment conduct has a sufficient connection to California.

For employers, that means geography remains important. Employers with remote workforces should know where their employees actually work, where the relevant decisionmakers are located, and who substantively participates in significant employment decisions. They also should not assume that a California choice-of-law provision answers which California statutory protections apply.

Remote work has blurred geographic lines that were once easier to identify. A manager can work from California, supervise an employee in Utah, consult with HR in another state, and make an employment decision while traveling somewhere else entirely.

Saberin provides some helpful clarity: California employers do not necessarily carry California employment law with them wherever their remote employees work. But in an increasingly distributed workplace, where the employee works—and where the employment decision is actually made—can make a significant difference.