The growth in remote work spurred by the pandemic is well-documented. We now confront one of the many issues created by that growth: When do California’s employment laws protect remote workers who are terminated by employers with their “principal offices” in California?
Plaintiff Pejman Saberin arbitrated claims against his former employer, defendant Alation, Inc. (Alation). He alleged, among other things, that Alation unlawfully terminated him based on an arrest that did not result in a conviction, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) section 12952 (Section 12952) and Labor Code section 432.7.
In deciding what law governed Saberin’s claims, the arbitrator ruled that these California statutes could not be applied extraterritorially because Saberin had been working remotely from Utah and the decision to terminate him was made in Illinois. The arbitrator issued an award in Alation’s favor upon the parties’ stipulation that they could not identify any non-California law allowing Saberin to pursue a cause of action for unlawful termination based upon an arrest without conviction.
Saberin then petitioned the trial court to vacate the arbitration award. He argued that the arbitrator’s extraterritoriality analysis was not “specific” to Section 12952 or Labor Code section 432.7, and did not properly consider the termination decision’s connections to California. The court denied the petition, finding no basis for vacating the award. Saberin now appeals the order denying his petition. We affirm because Saberin and his arrest had no connection to California and because there is insufficient evidence that Alation made the decision to terminate Saberin in California.
There are 0 comments