A recently published California Court of Appeal decision provides important guidance for California-based employers managing remote and multistate workforces. The decision confirms that California employment laws do not automatically apply to an employee who lives and works outside California, but they might apply depending on the circumstances and the particular law.
In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the Court of Appeal addressed whether California's law restricting the use of arrest records applied to a remote employee who worked from Utah for an employer headquartered in California. The plaintiff asserted California statutory claims after his employment was terminated, relying on the employer's California headquarters, a California choice-of-law provision in the Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement he signed, and the involvement of a human resources employee in California. The Court rejected those arguments and ruled that California law did not apply because the employee lived and worked outside California, the arrest at issue occurred outside California, and the termination decision was made by decision-makers who were outside California at the time the decision was made.
The plaintiff in Saberin asserted claims under Government Code Section 12952 (the Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA) and Labor Code Section 432.7, which restrict an employer's use of arrest records not resulting in conviction. He argued that California law should...
Chinese authorities have ordered major e-commerce platforms to remove 35 online stores operating under the name "Hong Kong Pharmacy" as part of a crackdown on fraudulent medical marketing, the Nati...