In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the Court of Appeal considered whether California’s “no-arrest-record” statute, Labor Code section 432.7, affords protections to employees who work in a different state.1 While noting how remote work has become increasingly common since the pandemic, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order refusing to vacate an arbitration award in the employer’s favor. Even though the employer prevailed in its argument that the remote worker was not protected by the statute, the Court of Appeal’s reasoning counsels caution for personnel actions regarding workers in California and elsewhere. Information about an employee’s arrest or pending charges can pose a dilemma for California employers.
Background
The plaintiff, based in Utah, sued his employer, headquartered in California, in San Mateo County Superior Court, asserting the employer terminated his employment in violation of the Labor Code. The plaintiff was arrested in Florida during his vacation. The employer learned of the arrest when investigating the plaintiff’s absence from work. The employee who located the arrest record worked in Utah.
The employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment based on the arrest and his dishonesty about why he missed work. The termination decision was made by two employees working in Illinois, though one of them ordinarily worked from his home in California. A third employee working in California provided “input” into the decision. (The plaintiff’s direct...
KUALA TERENGGANU: Three Rahmah Sales Programme (PJRM) operators in Terengganu have been suspended after being found guilty of violating operational guidelines, including submitting false subsidy c...