YOUR REMOTE EMPLOYEE CROSSED A STATE LINE CALIFORNIA OVERTIME MAY HAVE FOLLOWED
A lot of California employers assume that once an employee is working temporarily outside the state, California wage law stops applying to that stretch of work. That assumption is often wrong, and it can be expensive.
In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191, the California Supreme Court held that California’s daily overtime rules apply to full days worked in California by out- of- state residents, and that California’s Unfair Competition Law can reach overtime violations occurring entirely outside California when the employer is a California employer.
In Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732, the court extended a similar rule to wage- statement obligations under Lab. Code § 226 for employees based in California even when much of their work happens elsewhere.
Older still, Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557 remains the starting point: California’s wage orders apply to work performed in California, regardless of where the employer is based or where the employee normally works. Whether a mixed- jurisdiction pattern actually changes what a specific employee is owed depends on exactly which days were worked where, which is a fact- specific question.
For a small or mid- size California employer with a handful of remote or traveling employees, this is not an abstract doctrine. A sales employee who spends three days a month in Nevada, a project manager who works a week on- site in Arizona, or a fully remote hire who happens to live in Texas can each create a mixed- jurisdiction pay calculation that ordinary payroll software will not catch on its own.
The exposure here is retroactive. Once a mixed- jurisdiction pay pattern exists, every affected pay period is potentially subject to correction, not just the next one. Sorting out which days, which employees, and which pay components are actually covered is exactly the kind of fact- specific question a no-charge initial consultation is built to work through.
Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine what needs to be addressed – and how much of a conversation that takes.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney- client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts – no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.