In Saberin v. Alation, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., July 30, 2026) 2026 WL 2198953, California’s First District Court of Appeal addressed a growing remote-work question: when do California employment laws protect workers who live and work outside California for a California-based employer?
The court affirmed an order refusing to vacate an arbitration award against the employee. It held that FEHA’s arrest-record hiring rule (Government Code section 12952) and Labor Code section 432.7 did not apply extraterritorially on the facts presented.
What Happened
Pejman Saberin worked remotely from Utah as an engineer for Alation, Inc., a California-headquartered software company. In October 2023, he was arrested in Florida while returning from vacation. After Alation learned of the arrest, it terminated his employment. The criminal case was later dismissed.
Saberin sued in San Mateo County Superior Court, alleging Alation unlawfully considered an arrest that did not result in a conviction, in violation of FEHA section 12952 and Labor Code section 432.7. The parties stipulated to binding arbitration.
The Arbitration Ruling
The arbitrator concluded California law could not be applied extraterritorially because Saberin worked exclusively from Utah and the termination decision was made in Illinois. HR input from California was treated as too tenuous a connection.
The parties then stipulated that they could not identify Utah, federal, or other non-California law allowing a claim for termination based on an arrest without conviction. The arbitrator entered a take-nothing award for Alation.
Saberin petitioned to vacate the award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The trial court denied the petition, and Saberin appealed.
What the Court of Appeal Held
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Key points from the opinion:
- Choice-of-law is not enough. Even if the parties’ inventions agreement selected California law, California’s presumption against extraterritorial application still had to be overcome.
- No California connection for the employee or arrest. Saberin lived and worked in Utah, his supervisor worked in Washington, and the arrest occurred in Florida.
- The termination decision was made outside California. The decisionmakers were in Illinois when they decided to fire him. HR “input” from California, and later communicating the decision, was not enough to treat the unlawful conduct as occurring in California.
- A California-based decisionmaker traveling out of state did not change the result. One executive normally worked remotely from California but was in Illinois when the termination decision was made. Without evidence of shuttling decisionmakers out of state to evade California law, that fact was insufficient.
The court emphasized that applying these statutes to an employee with no California connection, based solely on non-substantive California HR involvement, would be “hopelessly indeterminate.”
Why This Matters for California Workers
Labor Code section 432.7 generally restricts employers from using records of arrests that did not result in conviction when making employment decisions, including termination. FEHA section 12952 likewise limits employer use of certain arrest information in conviction-history screening.
Saberin does not erase those protections for California workers. It does make clear that remote employees working entirely outside California may not be able to invoke those statutes unless the allegedly unlawful employer conduct has a meaningful California connection—typically more than headquarters location or routine HR involvement.
The court expressly left open whether California residents working remotely for out-of-state employers can still claim these protections.
Practical Takeaways
- If you work remotely outside California, do not assume FEHA or Labor Code arrest-record rules automatically apply just because your employer is California-based.
- Where the termination decision was made, who made it, and where you actually performed your work can control which state’s law applies.
- Arbitration choice-of-law language selecting California law may not, by itself, export California’s worker protections across state lines.
- California employees who live and work in California remain the core group these statutes are designed to protect.
If you were fired after an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, or if you have questions about how California employment law applies to remote work, contact Jonny Law to discuss your situation. This post is general information only and is not legal advice about any specific case.
Case: Saberin v. Alation, Inc., No. A174549 (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 5, filed July 30, 2026) 2026 WL 2198953. Read the court opinion (PDF).
