Yes. California employment law generally follows the employee, not the employer's headquarters. If you perform work while physically located in California, wage and hour rules, overtime, expense reimbursement, and restrictions on noncompete agreements typically apply regardless of where your employer is based, subject to narrow exceptions for occasional out-of-state travel.
This matters more than ever as remote and hybrid arrangements let companies headquartered in Texas, New York, or overseas hire workers who never set foot in a corporate office, but who log in every day from Sacramento, San Diego, or a spare bedroom in Oakland. Employers sometimes assume that because their entity is organized elsewhere, their home state's (often more employer-friendly) rules travel with the employment relationship. California courts and the legislature have repeatedly rejected that assumption.
Does California Law Follow the Worker or the Employer's Address?
It follows the worker's physical work location, in most contexts. California's core wage and hour protections, overtime, minimum wage, wage statements, and expense reimbursement, are tied to where work is actually performed, not where the company files its incorporation papers or issues payroll from.
The clearest illustration is the California Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal.4th 1191 (2011). Nonresident instructors who lived and primarily worked in Arizona and Colorado occasionally traveled into California to teach Oracle customers. The court held that California's daily and weekly overtime rules applied to the full days and weeks those out-of-state employees worked inside California, reasoning that the state's overtime laws apply to all employment in the state, without reference to the employee's place of residence. The court also warned that carving out nonresidents from the protection would encourage employers to import unprotected workers from other states.
Sullivan technically addressed a California-based employer sending workers into the state. The court left open, and did not resolve, whether the same rules extend to employers headquartered entirely outside California whose employees only occasionally pass through the state. That gap matters less for the fully remote employee who lives in California and never leaves; for that worker, the location of work and the location of residence point the same direction, toward California law.
Can an Out-of-State Employer Require You to Litigate Under Another State's Law?
Generally, no, not if you primarily reside and work in California and were not independently represented by counsel when you signed the agreement. California Labor Code Section 925, effective January 1, 2017, restricts employers from requiring employees who primarily work and reside in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to adjudicate California-arising disputes outside California or under another state's law. The law applies to agreements entered into, modified, or extended on or after that date, and it covers arbitration as well as litigation clauses.
If a clause violates Section 925, the employee can void that specific provision, and the dispute is then adjudicated in California under California law. The one significant exception: if the employee was, in fact, individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the choice-of-law or forum terms, Section 925 does not apply, and the out-of-state clause can stand.
What Happens to Noncompete Clauses When the Employer Is Based Elsewhere?
They are void, and, as of 2024, employers face real penalties for trying to enforce them anyway. California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 has long voided contracts that restrain a person from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business, subject to narrow statutory exceptions mostly tied to the sale of a business. Two 2024 laws, SB 699 and AB 1076, closed a loophole that some out-of-state employers had tried to exploit.
SB 699 added Section 16600.5, making it unlawful for any employer to attempt to enforce a noncompete against a California employee "regardless of whether the contract was signed and the employment was maintained outside of California." AB 1076 added Section 16600.1, expressly declaring noncompete clauses unlawful in the employment context and requiring employers to send affected current and former employees (hired after January 1, 2022) written notice that their noncompetes are void, with a compliance deadline of February 14, 2024. In other words, a company based in Utah, Texas, or Delaware cannot draft around Section 16600 simply by choosing its home state's law in the contract.
What Wage, Overtime, and Reimbursement Rules Must Out-of-State Employers Follow?
The same ones any California employer must follow for work performed in the state. Three provisions come up most often in disputes involving remote or traveling employees:
Minimum wage: California's statewide minimum wage rose to 16.90 dollars per hour effective January 1, 2026, and it applies to work performed in the state regardless of the employer's location.
Wage statements: Labor Code Section 226 requires an itemized statement each pay period showing gross wages, hours worked, all deductions, net wages, pay period dates, and the employer's legal name and address, among other items.
Expense reimbursement: Labor Code Section 2802 requires employers to cover necessary expenses an employee incurs doing the job, which for a remote worker can extend to a share of internet, phone, and basic home office costs.
The chart below shows how quickly the statewide minimum wage has climbed, a useful reminder that whatever rate an out-of-state employer applies elsewhere, California's own floor rises every January.
How Do the Rules Compare Depending on Where the Employer Is Based?
| Employer headquarters | Where the employee works | Which state's core wage and overtime rules usually apply |
|---|---|---|
| California | California | California law applies without dispute |
| Another state | California, full time | California law applies; Sullivan v. Oracle confirms this for California-based employers and strongly supports the same result for out-of-state employers whose staff work in California |
| Another state | Occasional trips into California | Fact specific; California daily and weekly overtime can attach for the full days or weeks actually worked inside the state |
| Another state | Only in that other state, never California | That other state's law generally applies, even if the company also has California-based employees elsewhere |
Checklist: Signs Your Out-of-State Employer May Not Be Following California Law
- Your offer letter or handbook cites another state's overtime or meal break rules instead of California's.
- You are asked to sign a noncompete or a forum-selection clause naming a court outside California, without a lawyer reviewing it on your behalf.
- Your pay stub does not itemize hours, deductions, and pay period dates as required under Labor Code Section 226.
- You have never been reimbursed for a work related phone, internet, or home office cost despite asking.
- Your pay rate has not kept pace with California's minimum wage increases.
FAQ
Does it matter where my paycheck comes from or where the company is incorporated?
Not for purposes of which wage and hour law applies to your work. What matters most is where you physically perform the work. An out-of-state entity that employs someone working inside California is still generally subject to California's overtime, minimum wage, and reimbursement rules for the time that employee spends working in the state.
Can my employer make me agree to another state's law by putting it in my contract?
Only in limited circumstances. Under Labor Code Section 925, an employer generally cannot require an employee who primarily works and resides in California, as a condition of employment, to accept an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause, unless the employee was independently represented by counsel when negotiating that specific term.
Are noncompete agreements enforceable if my employer is based in another state?
Generally no. Since the 2024 amendments under SB 699 and AB 1076, California law voids noncompete clauses in the employment context and bars employers from attempting to enforce them against California workers even if the contract was signed, and the employment maintained, outside California.
What if I only travel into California occasionally for work, rather than living and working there full time?
This is the most fact-dependent scenario. Sullivan v. Oracle held that California overtime rules apply to full days and weeks a nonresident employee works inside California for a California-based employer, but the California Supreme Court left open how far that rule reaches for employers with no California base whose staff only pass through occasionally.
What can I do if I think my out-of-state employer is not following California law?
Document your work location, pay stubs, and any agreement you signed, then get a case-specific read before assuming which law controls, since outcomes can turn on details like where the employer is based and how much time you actually spend working in California.
This article is general information, not legal advice for your specific situation. For a verified answer based on your facts and documents, try OptiMaxWork AI's free 7-day trial. Start your free trial
Disclaimer: This article summarizes publicly available California statutes and case law for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Laws and enforcement priorities change; verify current requirements with the California Department of Industrial Relations or a licensed California employment attorney before acting. Sources and capture dates:
- Ogletree Deakins, "Labor Code Section 925: Answers to 10 Key Questions," captured August 28, 2026
- Dykema, "What Every Employer Needs to Know About Non-California Employees Working in California on a Limited Basis" (summarizing Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal.4th 1191 (2011)), captured August 28, 2026
- Littler, "California's Non-Compete Shakeup" (SB 699 and AB 1076), captured August 28, 2026
- California Department of Industrial Relations, News Release 2025-118, "California's minimum wage set to increase to $16.90 per hour on January 1, 2026," captured August 28, 2026
- California Department of Industrial Relations, News Release 2024-107 and 2023-99 (prior minimum wage increases), captured August 28, 2026
- FindLaw, California Labor Code Section 226 (itemized wage statement requirements), captured August 28, 2026
- LegalClarity, "Complying with California Remote Employee Laws" (Labor Code Section 2802 reimbursement), captured August 28, 2026