The widespread adoption of remote work has disrupted longstanding assumptions regarding which state’s employment laws govern a particular worker. A company may be headquartered in California, employ a worker residing in Utah, have that worker supervised from Washington, and have an employment decision about that worker made by executives who were physically present in Illinois at the time they acted. The question then arises: can the employee bring claims against the employer under California employment law?
The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Saberin v. Alation, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 5, No. A174549, July 30, 2026) addresses this question directly. The case provides guidance on whether and under what conditions California’s employment statutes apply to a worker who resides and performs services entirely outside the state, when the employment decision at issue was made by individuals who were themselves located outside California at the relevant time. While the case’s underlying dispute concerned an alleged wrongful termination, the decision’s paramount relevance for employers lies in its treatment of the geographic reach of California employment law in the context of a multi-state workforce.
Case Background
Pejman Saberin was employed remotely from Utah as an engineer by Alation, Inc., a data analytics company headquartered in California. Saberin was arrested while traveling out of state, and Alation subsequently terminated his employment....
The Department of Justice announced on Thursday a large healthcare fraud takedown in California, resulting in alleged losses of $2 billion. Fifteen people have been charged in schemes that resulte...