What Location Facts Remote Employees Should Preserve Before Claiming California Employment Protections

Remote work has made the geography of employment relationships genuinely complicated. An employee may live in one state, work for a company headquartered in another, and interact daily with managers scattered across a third. When a termination dispute arises, each of those locations can determine which state's statutes apply — and whether a particular protective law reaches the situation at all. A July 2026 California Court of Appeal decision, Saberin v. Alation, Inc., No. A174549, illustrates that point with unusual clarity. The court held that two California employment statutes did not apply to a termination decision made under those specific geographic facts, and it expressly declined to resolve how the same statutes would apply in different location configurations. For remote employees and their counsel, the opinion is a careful reminder that California's employment protections are not automatically portable — and that the factual record a worker builds before litigation may determine whether those protections are available at all.

Procedural Posture and How the Case Reached the Court of Appeal

The dispute arose after an employee was terminated following an arrest. The employee pursued claims under California Government Code section 12952 and Labor Code section 432.7, both of which address employer use of arrest records. The matter proceeded to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled against the employee. The employee then sought to vacate the arbitration award in court, arguing that the arbitrator had committed legal error. The trial court denied vacatur, and the employee appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected Alation's two challenges to appealability. It held that judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2(a)(4) was available because the arbitrator's ruling deprived Saberin of a hearing on the merits of his FEHA claim under Government Code section 12952: the parties stipulated to an award after neither could identify any Utah, federal, or other non-California law authorizing a claim for termination based on an arrest without conviction. The court assumed without deciding that the same review was available for the Labor Code section 432.7 claim. It also rejected Alation's waiver argument because Saberin presented his governing-law arguments to the arbitrator and in his vacatur petition. After de novo review of the territorial question, the court affirmed the denial of vacatur because the arbitrator's result was legally correct.

The Geographic Facts the Court Found Controlling

The factual geography in Saberin was specific and, for the court, dispositive. The employee was based in Utah. The employer, Alation, Inc., was headquartered in California. The arrest that triggered the termination decision occurred in Florida. Critically, Rose (who worked remotely from Utah) and Mousouris (who normally worked remotely from California) were both in Illinois when they made the termination decision; California human resources personnel also had some involvement in the process, but the arbitrator found that involvement too tenuous to supply a California nexus—a factual finding by the arbitrator to which the Court of Appeal deferred. The court separately held, as a legal matter, that Laber's communication of the termination decision to Saberin was insufficient because the unlawful conduct under both statutes is the termination decision itself, not its communication. The court also noted that Saberin's direct supervisor worked remotely from Washington, not California. It analyzed the full geographic record in relation to the territorial scope of the two statutes and concluded that they did not apply extraterritorially on those facts. No single element — the California headquarters, the California HR input, or the employee's use of company systems — was sufficient, standing alone, to bring the termination within California's statutory reach under the court's analysis.

Why a California Choice-of-Law Clause Did Not Change the Outcome

Employees and advocates sometimes assume that a California choice-of-law clause in an employment agreement will import California's full suite of worker protections regardless of where work is performed or where decisions are made. The court in Saberin rejected that assumption in the context of these statutes. It did not decide whether the Inventions Agreement's choice-of-law clause applied to the statutory claims; it assumed for purposes of analysis that the clause applied and concluded that, even on that assumption, California's presumption against extraterritoriality still governed. The opinion explains that a contractual choice-of-law provision does not override the territorial limits built into a statute by the legislature. Whether a California statute applies to a given set of facts is a question of legislative intent and statutory scope — not simply a matter of what the parties agreed to call the governing law. This distinction matters practically: workers who rely on a California choice-of-law clause as a substitute for actual California connections may find that reliance misplaced when a court examines the underlying geography of the employment relationship.

What the Court Expressly Left Open

The opinion is notable for its restraint as much as for its holding. The court expressly declined to decide how Government Code section 12952 and Labor Code section 432.7 would apply to a California resident working remotely for an employer that has no offices in California. That configuration — the mirror image of the facts in Saberin — remains an open question under California appellate authority. The court also did not purport to resolve the territorial reach of other California employment statutes. The opinion calls for statute-specific analysis, meaning that a conclusion about these two arrest-record provisions does not automatically carry over to wage-and-hour laws, anti-discrimination provisions, or other protective regimes. Remote employees and their counsel should treat each statute as presenting its own territorial question.

The Evidence and Record Implications for Remote Workers

Because territorial application turned on where the employee worked, where the decision makers were located, and where relevant events occurred, the evidentiary record on those points was central to the outcome. Remote employees who believe California law protects them should think carefully about what documentation exists — and what documentation they should be creating — to establish the geographic facts that matter. Relevant categories of evidence may include records showing the employee's physical work location over time, communications identifying where supervisors and decision makers were based, documentation of which office or team had authority over personnel decisions, and any written policies or agreements that address the geographic scope of employment. None of these categories is a guarantee of a particular legal outcome, but their absence can make a territorial argument significantly harder to advance.

Practical Steps for Remote Employees Concerned About California Protections

The Saberin decision suggests several practical considerations for remote employees who believe their work relationship has meaningful California connections. First, identify which specific statute or statutes you believe apply, because the territorial analysis is statute-specific. Second, document your own work location consistently — where you physically perform work, not merely where your employer is incorporated or where your contract says it is governed. Third, pay attention to where the people who supervise you and make decisions about your employment are actually located, and preserve communications that reflect those locations. Fourth, do not treat a California choice-of-law clause as a substitute for genuine California connections. This guidance is specific to the extraterritoriality question; a California choice-of-law clause may still govern other contractual disputes between the parties. Fifth, if an adverse employment action is threatened or has occurred, consult with an employment litigation attorney before assuming which state's law governs your claims, because that assumption can affect how you preserve evidence and what claims you pursue.

Why Statute-Specific Analysis Matters More Than a General Rule

One of the most important practical lessons from Saberin is that there is no single answer to the question of whether California employment law applies to a remote worker. The court's analysis was tied to the text, structure, and apparent legislative purpose of the two specific statutes before it. A different statute — one with different language about covered employees, covered employers, or covered conduct — could yield a different territorial conclusion on similar facts. This means that remote employees, HR professionals, and litigators should resist the temptation to generalize. The Mishra X case library tracks developing authority on employment law questions, including the evolving body of decisions addressing remote work and multi-state employment relationships. Checking that resource as new decisions are published can help practitioners stay current on a rapidly changing area of law.

Questions About Remote Work and California Employment Law

Does working for a California-headquartered company automatically mean California employment statutes apply to me?

Not necessarily. The Saberin decision illustrates that an employer's California headquarters is one geographic fact among several, and it was not sufficient on its own to bring the termination within the reach of the two statutes at issue. Courts examine where the employee works, where decision makers are located, where relevant events occurred, and the specific language of the statute being invoked. The answer can differ from statute to statute even within the same employment relationship. If you are uncertain whether a particular California law applies to your situation, speaking with an employment litigation attorney familiar with multi-state employment issues is the most reliable way to assess your position.

Can a California choice-of-law clause in my employment contract protect me under California statutes even if I work in another state?

The court in Saberin did not decide whether the Inventions Agreement's California choice-of-law clause applied to the statutory claims. It assumed that it did for purposes of analysis and concluded that, even on that assumption, California's presumption against extraterritoriality still governed. Contractual choice-of-law provisions do not by themselves expand the geographic scope of a statute beyond what the legislature intended. Whether a California statute applies to your circumstances depends on the statute's own territorial reach, not solely on what your contract says about governing law. This is an area where the gap between what an employment agreement appears to promise and what the law actually delivers can be significant.

What did the Saberin court leave unresolved that might affect my situation as a California resident working remotely for an employer that has no offices in California?

The court expressly declined to decide how Government Code section 12952 and Labor Code section 432.7 apply to a California resident who works remotely for an employer that has no offices in California. That configuration — the reverse of the facts in Saberin — remains an open question under current California appellate authority. If you are a California resident working remotely for an out-of-state company and you face an adverse employment action, the territorial question is genuinely unsettled for these statutes, and the answer may also differ for other California employment laws. Preserving detailed records of your work location and the location of your employer's decision makers is important precisely because that factual record may be central to how a court resolves the question. You can review the Mishra X case library for updates as courts address this evolving issue.