Do California’s Discrimination Laws Apply to Remote Workers?

The rise of remote work during and after the COVID-19 pandemic has raised a series of questions about whether California’s laws apply to employees who work in other states. A July 2026 decision from the California First District Court of Appeal, Saberin v. Alation, Inc. (July 30, 2026) A174549, reached the following conclusions:

1. The fact that an arbitration agreement states that California law applies to a dispute does not necessarily mean that California discrimination law applies.
2. When an employee works outside of California and the decision to terminate is made outside of California, there is no connection to California and therefore California Labor Code section 432.7 and Government Code section 12952 do not apply.

This post will explore the bases of these conclusions, their implications for future cases, and the questions that remain open in the wake of Saberin.

Background

Mr. Saberin lived in Utah and worked remotely for Alation as an engineer beginning in September 2021. In 2023, Alation learned that Mr. Saberin had been arrested and detained. It then terminated his employment.

Mr. Saberin sued, alleging violations of California Labor Code section 432.7 and Government Code section 12952. Together, those statutes govern how and when an employer can inquire into employees’ arrest records.

The parties then agreed to proceed in arbitration pursuant to two agreements that had been signed by Mr. Saberin. One of those agreements provide that it was “governed by the laws of the State of California,” as well as a specific clause in the arbitration provision that any and all claims “ARISING OUT OF, RELATING TO OR RESULTING FROM MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY OR THE TERMINATION OF MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY” would be subject to binding arbitration “PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LAW.”

The arbitrator found that California law did not apply to Mr. Saberin’s claims. The trial court agreed with the arbitrator, and so the case wound up at the First District Court of Appeal.

What does “governed by the laws of the State of California” actually mean?

The first substantive issue before the court was what to do about the choice of law provision that specifically referred to California law. The court interpreted this provision to mean that “all of California law” applied—including California’s “presumption against extraterritorial application of its law.” (quoting O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2014) 58 F.Supp.3d 989, 1005.)

Here, the court followed two federal district court decisions: O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2014) 58 F.Supp.3d 989, 1005-6 [concluding that Labor Code sections 351 and 2802 did not apply extraterritorially to plaintiffs working in other states despite California choice-of-law provisions in applicable agreement]; and Cotter v. Lyft, Inc. (2014) 60 F.Supp.3d 1059, 1062, 1064–1066 [concluding contractual California choice-of-law provision did not extend reach of wage and hours laws that do not apply extraterritorially to people performing work exclusively in other states].

The court also relied upon the California Supreme Court decision in Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732, 760, which referred to a “presumption against extraterritoriality” which it described as “a presumption that state law is intended to apply only within state borders.”

Accordingly, because the presumption against extraterritoriality applied, the court concluded that Mr. Saberin had to overcome that presumption in order for California law to apply in his case. Should this holding survive, it will effectively mean that California choice of law provisions in employment contracts do not necessarily mean that workers can invoke California law when suing employers.

What Kinds of Connection to California are Required?

The court then turned to the question of whether Mr. Saberin had shown that the Legislature intended either of the two statutes that he invoked to apply to employees who worked outside of California. The court again turned to Ward for the following first principles:

1. Each law must be considered on its own terms.

2. There is no single purpose answer to the question of when California law will apply.

3. The question to be asked is, for a particular statute, “what kinds of California connections will suffice to trigger the relevant provisions of California law.”

Applying these principles to California Labor Code section 226, which governs wage statements, the California Supreme Court found in Ward that it applied to workers whose “principal place of work is California.” In adopting that test, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that Section 226 gives rise to liability when the conduct that gives rise to liability occurs in California.

The Saberin court then applied the Ward principles to Section 12952 and Labor Code section 432.7. Beginning with section 432.7, the court found that the legislative history indicated that the Legislature intended that statute to apply to non-California workers where there was a sufficient connection to the state. The court reached the same conclusion with regard to Section 12952.

Turning to the facts of the case, the court found no connection to California for the following reasons:

It will be interesting to see how the presumption against extraterritoriality gets interpreted in future cases. It seems unfair that a California employer can require remote workers to agree that California law applies in cases brought by the employer, but not by the workers. It is also reasonable to assume that most remote workers do not know about the presumption, and will therefore be surprised to learn that California law does not apply to claims that they may wish to bring.

Additionally, although Mr. Saberin ultimately lost, his case provides a roadmap for showing a sufficient connection to California for remote workers. Relevant factors include (1) where an employee’s supervisor worked; (2) where the relevant decisions were made (see also Campbell v. Arco Marine, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1850 [addressing extraterritorial application of FEHA in state court action]; and (3) where the employee’s conduct, if any, took place.

If you are a remote worker who is wondering whether California law applies to your claims, please feel free to contact the workers rights attorneys at Hunter Pyle Law, PC. We can be reached at (510) 444-4400 or at hunter@hunterpylelaw.com.