A lawsuit recently filed in California provides an interesting illustration regarding potential perils which may arise with remote workers, specifically the possibility that a company may find itself subjected to the laws of a state in which it has employees, but no physical office location.
Snyder v. Alright Solutions, LLC
In the recently filed Complaint in Snyder v. Alright Solutions, LLC, (Court File No. 8:21-CV-00187) a remote worker living in California sued her Illinois-based employer alleging various violations of California law following her termination.
Snyder, a data analyst, visited Washington, D.C. on January 6 during the now-notorious Capitol Riots. In her Complaint, Snyder alleges that she herself did not participate in any rioting, but characterizes her involvement as simply marching to the Capitol following the speech of former-President Trump, taking two selfies which she subsequently posted to Facebook, and leaving.
Once online, her selfies were noticed by a third-party who in turn posted them on Alight’s corporate Facebook page with the comment: “Alight employee storming the capital.” Alleging that she had been the victim of a “cyberbullying,” Snyder complained to Human Resources regarding the third-party’s post. Snyder reported the “cyberbullying” on January 8, 2021, and was terminated two days later.
In her Complaint, Snyder alleges that her termination was unlawful under a number of California laws, including: 1) the “Tom Bane Act” (Cal. Labor Code § 52.1), which prohibits individuals from threatening another with the intent to interfere with the exercise of civil rights (Snyder alleges that her rights to freedom of speech and assembly were infringed); 2) a violation of California’s constitutional prohibition against terminations in violation of public policy (again based upon a theory regarding her “freedom of speech”); and 3) a violation of the “covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” For these alleged violations of law, Snyder is seeking a whopping 10 million dollars in damages.
While this litigation is only just beginning, it provides an interesting example – and potential warning – for employers to note regarding which laws apply to an out-of-state employee who works from home.
Wait, how does California law apply to an Illinois employer?
While it may be easy to discount this case as a quirk of California law, it is important to note that the Defendant is a company based out of Illinois. Despite being based halfway across the country, Alight may nevertheless still be covered by California’s laws with respect to its remote workers who live there.
A state or local employment law’s coverage will depend upon the particular provision’s definition of employee and employer, however, employers are generally required to follow the employment laws of the locale where the remote worker lives and performs their job duties.
As employers continue to utilize remote workers on an increased basis, even after the pandemic subsides, companies may find themselves subject to the laws of another state. For example, under Minnesota law, an employee who is terminated must receive their final paycheck at the next regularly scheduled pay day, however, under California law, a terminated employee’s final paycheck is due immediately, i.e. on the date of termination. Therefore, determining which laws apply to a particular employee and a particular situation is a paramount preliminary determination, as an action which complies with one state’s laws may be explicitly insufficient under another’s.
Bottom Line
It remains to be seen whether telework will continue at an increased rate as businesses attempt to establish a new normal post-COVID-19. However, to the extent a company utilizes remote workers, employers are well advised to take note of which employees reside out-of-state, especially those residing in traditionally pro-employee jurisdictions, including, for example, California, New York, Oregon, and Washington, to ensure that the correct set of laws are being followed.