On July 30, 2026, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Saberin v. Alation, Inc., addressing an important question for employers navigating today’s remote workforce: Does California’s “no-arrest-record” statute, Labor Code section 432.7, protect employees who work remotely outside of California? The court concluded that, under the circumstances presented, the statute did not apply.

Case Background

Under California Labor Code Section 432.7, employers are generally prohibited from considering arrest records that did not lead to a conviction when making employment decisions like hiring or termination.

In Saberin, the plaintiff was a Utah-based remote engineer for a California-headquartered software firm. While on vacation in Florida, he was arrested but the charges were dismissed. After learning of the arrest, the company terminated his employment. The employee filed suit, arguing the termination violated California’s arrest record protections.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court of Appeal affirmed an arbitration award in favor of the employer, holding that California’s statutory protections did not apply. The court emphasized the longstanding presumption against the extraterritorial application of California labor laws, noting that:

  • The employee lived and performed all work in Utah.
  • The arrest took place in Florida.
  • The termination decision was made by managers located outside of California.

The court reaffirmed that an employer’s corporate headquarters in California is not enough on its own to extend California employment protections to out-of-state remote workers.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Saberin was ultimately a victory for the employer, but the decision may be equally notable for what it leaves open. The Court of Appeal did not reject the possibility that Labor Code section 432.7 could apply to an out-of-state remote employee. Rather, it concluded that the necessary California connections were missing in this case. Employers should therefore focus not only on where their employees work, but also on where critical employment decisions are made.

 

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary provided in this alert does not, and cannot, cover in detail what employers need to know about the amendments to the Philadelphia Fair Chance Law or how to incorporate its requirements into their hiring process. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.