California
California: Arrest Record Protections May Extend Outside California
|
APPLIES TO As Indicated |
EFFECTIVE JUL 30, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal said that an employer disciplining an employee in another state for an arrest may violate California’s no-arrest-record rule if the decision has enough of a connection to California. Although the facts were too tenuous here, the ruling leaves open the possibility that out-of-state workers may enforce California laws against California employers.
Here, the employee lived and worked in Utah, and was arrested in Florida. His sister emailed his work saying that he was injured in an accident. The employer discovered on its own that he was actually arrested. When he was released from detention the next day, his employer terminated his employment. The criminal case against the individual was ultimately dismissed. Labor Code section 432.7 states, in part, that an employer “shall not seek from any source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any condition of employment including…termination, …any record of arrest or detention that did not result in conviction.” Similarly, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) says that it is unlawful for an employer with five or more employees to consider an “[a]rrest not followed by conviction” “while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with any application for employment.”
This case posed the question: “When do California’s employment laws protect remote workers who are terminated by employers with their “principal offices” in California?” Following California Supreme Court precedent, the court said the answer lies in evaluating what kinds of California connections will suffice to trigger the relevant provisions of California law outside of California. The court said that the arrest record laws serve an important public policy to “prevent the misuse of criminal offender records information” by employers. The Legislature “intended for the statute to cover both workers and employer conduct in the state,” which means that for the laws to extend to non-California workers, the “unlawful conduct at issue must have a sufficient connection to California.”
In applying this standard, the court said that the employee and his arrest had no connection to California. He lived and worked remotely from Utah and was arrested in Florida. His “direct supervisor” worked remotely from the state of Washington. The decision-makers made the termination decision while in Illinois (even though one of them actually lived in California), and the person who discovered the arrest worked from Utah. The court said that there was an insufficient connection to California in this case to show that wrongful conduct occurred in California that would justify enforcement of California law.
Notwithstanding, employers must be wary of this ruling. The analysis could have had the opposite result if the facts showed that the wrongful conduct took place in California, even though the employee was an out-of-state worker. It is unclear from the case what elements are necessary to show where the wrongful conduct took place; however, where the termination decision was made or the actual consideration of or obtaining of the arrest history were considerations in this case. California employers should consider the applicable law when taking adverse action against out-of-state workers.
Action Items
- Review adverse actions against out-of-state workers with legal counsel.
- Evaluate internal organizational structures to determine potential legal gaps.
California: Cal/OSHA Worker Walkaround Rule
On July 1, 2026, Cal/OSHA posted proposed modifications to its California variation of the federal OSHA “worker walkaround rule,” opening a narrow 15-day public comment period through July 16, 2026. This continues a rulemaking process that began with an initial proposal and public hearing on April 1, 2026. Cal/OSHA has justified the rule by citing Labor Code § 50.7(d) and the need to prevent federal withdrawal of state plan approval. The July 1 modifications addressed only minor terminology changes and do not respond to any of the substantive employer-community concerns previously placed on record, signaling Cal/OSHA’s intent to move forward with implementation on a compressed timeline.
California: New Fact Sheet on Disability Accommodations at Work
On July 8, 2026, California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD) released a “Disability Accommodations at Work“ fact sheet providing guidance on workplace disability protections, including an employee’s right to request an accommodation and an employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process when evaluating such requests. State and federal disability laws require employers who are aware of an individual’s disability to provide reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Notably in California, these protections extend to job applicants, interns, and volunteers. The fact sheet highlights that reasonable accommodations can take many forms, including, but not limited to, allowing service animals, providing readers or interpreters, restructuring job tasks, modifying work schedules, or permitting remote work. The fact sheet is informational only and employers are not required to distribute or display it, but employers should consult legal counsel before denying an accommodation request based on undue hardship.
San Francisco, CA: Fair Chance Ordinance Amended
Effective August 10, 2026, amendments to San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO) expand the list of criminal records employers are prohibited from inquiring into or relying upon when making employment decisions, including out-of-state convictions for conduct that is lawful in California. The amendments add four new categories of impermissible inquiries: Abortion-Related Healthcare Convictions, Drag Convictions, Gender Affirming Care Convictions, and Spontaneous Abortion-Related Convictions. The FCO also strengthens procedural requirements around pre-adverse action notices, now requiring employers to confirm receipt of timely applicant submissions. Covered employers (particularly those operating in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego) should review their hiring processes, job applications, background check disclosures, and adverse action notice templates to ensure compliance with the amended FCO and overlapping state and federal requirements.
California: Minimum Wage Increase
Effective January 1, 2027, California’s minimum wage will increase to $17.40/hour for employers not otherwise covered by the state’s fast food or healthcare worker minimum wage laws. The increase was certified on July 31, 2026, based on a 2.99% CPI increase from July 2025 through June 2026, which came in below the 3.5% statutory cap under California Labor Code Section 1182.12. This hourly increase also raises the minimum salary threshold for full-time exempt employees from $70,304 per year ($5,858.67 per month) to $72,384 per year ($6,032 per month), effective the same date. Employers covered by AB 1228 for fast food restaurant employees or SB 525 and SB 159 for healthcare workers are subject to separate thresholds.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase