California wage law follows the work, and each statute draws its own line. Overtime applies to full days and weeks that nonresidents work in California for a California-based employer, the Supreme Court of California held in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011). Wage statement and pay-timing rules apply only when California is the employee’s principal place of work, or the base of operations for workers who don’t spend most of their time in any one state. Location records are the core of the defense.
Does California overtime apply to an employee who lives in another state?
Yes, for full days and weeks worked here. The plaintiffs in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191 were Oracle instructors who lived in Colorado and Arizona and traveled to train customers. From 2001 to 2004, one worked 74 days in California, another 110, and the third 20. Oracle treated them as exempt and didn’t pay overtime.
The court answered the Ninth Circuit’s question directly: “We conclude the Labor Code’s overtime provisions (id., §§ 510, 1194) do apply to plaintiffs’ claims for compensation for work performed in this state,” according to the opinion. It added that nothing in its earlier precedent suggests a nonresident employee “can enter the state for entire days or weeks without the protection of California law.”
That brings in California’s daily overtime rule, which federal law doesn’t have. Under Labor Code section 510(a), “Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee.” A visiting employee who works two 10-hour days in a California office can be owed daily overtime for those days, even if the week stays under 40 hours. The firm’s post on the regular rate of pay covers how that rate is calculated.
Sullivan also limited what the employees could do with their out-of-state work. The court held that their federal overtime claims for work performed in other states couldn’t serve as the basis for claims under California’s unfair competition law, according to the opinion. That kept California’s unfair competition remedies from reaching overtime for work done elsewhere.
Does it matter that Oracle was a California company?
It mattered to how the court framed the case, and employers elsewhere shouldn’t read much comfort into it. The Ninth Circuit’s questions concerned nonresident employees who worked here and in other states for a California-based employer, and the court noted the point when it distinguished an earlier case. But the court’s reasoning centered on work performed in California, and the state’s interest in overtime for that work.
The safer assumption for any employer is that a full day worked in California is a California day for overtime purposes. Sullivan pointed to an earlier decision suggesting California law might not apply to nonresident employees of out-of-state businesses who “enter California temporarily during the course of the workday,” according to the opinion. That’s a narrow opening for short visits, and it isn’t a holding an employer should build a pay policy around.
Do other California wage laws follow the same rule?
No. Sullivan warned against stretching its holding. While California’s overtime law applies to full days and weeks worked here by nonresidents, the court said “one cannot necessarily assume the same result would obtain for any other aspect of wage law,” according to the opinion. It gave pay stubs and vacation time as examples where California’s interest might not justify applying its law over the employer’s home state.
Nine years later, the court took up those other laws. In Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732, it addressed the wage statement statute, Labor Code section 226. In Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762, decided the same day, it addressed section 226 again along with section 204, which sets the timing of regular paydays.
| California law | When it applies to a multistate employee | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Overtime (Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194) | Full days and weeks worked in California for a California-based employer | Sullivan |
| Wage statements (Lab. Code § 226) | California is the principal place of work, or the base of work operations for workers not mostly in any one state | Ward, Oman |
| Pay timing (Lab. Code § 204) | Same test as wage statements | Oman |
| Minimum wage for brief work in California | Left open | Oman |
When do the wage statement and pay-timing rules apply?
When California is where the employee mainly works. Ward held that “whether plaintiffs are entitled to California-compliant wage statements depends on whether their principal place of work is in California,” according to the opinion. Oman restated the rule: “Ordinarily, this test is met if an employee works primarily (i.e., the majority of the time) in California,” according to Oman.
Employees who don’t work a majority of their time in any state get a second test. For “pilots, flight attendants, and other interstate transportation workers who do not perform a majority of their work in any one state, this test is satisfied when California serves as their base of work operations, regardless of their place of residence or whether a collective bargaining agreement governs their pay,” the court held in Ward. Ward didn’t decide what happens to employees who have no base of operations anywhere.
Oman applied the same test to section 204. The court answered that sections 204 and 226 “do not apply to pay periods in which an employee works only episodically and for less than a day at a time in California unless the employee works primarily in this state during the pay period, or does not work primarily in any state but has his or her base of operations in California,” according to the opinion. The Delta flight attendants in Oman never worked more than half their time in California, so their claims under those statutes depended on where they were based.
Does the employee’s home state matter at all?
Not under these tests. Ward’s base-of-operations rule applies “regardless of their place of residence,” and Sullivan applied overtime to residents of Colorado and Arizona. Both cases looked at where the work happened. A California resident who works mostly in Nevada may fall outside sections 204 and 226, and a Nevada resident who works mostly in California may fall inside them.
Remote work raises these questions often. Under the principal-place-of-work test, an employee who works from home in California most of the time will likely be treated as working principally in California, even if the employer has no California office. An employer that hires remote staff without checking where they sit is the one that ends up with a California wage statement claim it didn’t see coming.
What about minimum wage for short trips into California?
The Supreme Court of California hasn’t decided it. The Ninth Circuit also asked in Oman whether California’s minimum wage law applied to flight attendants who worked only short stretches here. The court held Delta’s pay scheme didn’t violate California’s rule against wage borrowing, so it didn’t need to reach the question. “In light of the answer to the question about the substantive application of the state’s minimum wage laws, we do not address the separate question concerning the geographic scope of that law’s application,” the court wrote in Oman.
That leaves the issue open, and employers shouldn’t treat Oman as a ruling in their favor on it. The practical answer is to pay at or above California’s minimum for hours worked in California, which costs little for most salaried and skilled employees and removes the issue.
How should an employer defend a claim from a multistate employee?
With location records. These claims are about where each day of work happened, and an employer that can show it day by day is in a much better position than one that has to reconstruct it from memory. Travel and expense reports, flight and hotel bookings, badge and login data, and timesheets that capture location all help.
The employer should also separate the claims. An overtime claim under Sullivan reaches only the full days and weeks worked here, so the damages period may be far shorter than the complaint suggests. A wage statement or pay-timing claim needs the employee to show California was the principal place of work or the base of operations. Where the employee can’t, those claims, and any PAGA penalties built on them, may fall away. These issues often come up first in a Labor Commissioner wage claim, which the firm’s post on Berman hearings covers.
When a traveling or remote employee files a wage claim
- Preserve timekeeping and payroll data, travel and expense records, calendars, badge and system login records, and the emails and texts that show where the employee worked each day, plus the pay policies and handbook versions in effect.
- Calendar the response deadline on the claim or complaint, and check for an arbitration agreement and an employment practices liability (EPLI) policy with notice terms.
- Identify the managers who assigned the employee’s travel and schedules, and stop any further action against the employee that could look like retaliation.
- Pull the records that place each workday in a state, and sort them into full California days and partial or out-of-state days.
- Get legal advice before recalculating back pay, contacting the employee or their lawyer, or offering anything to settle.
Employers with staff who cross state lines can usually reduce exposure by fixing pay practices before a claim arrives. The firm’s page on California wage and hour defense covers how these claims are defended.
Out-of-state employee questions employers ask
Do we owe California overtime to a salesperson who visits California clients?
For full days and weeks the salesperson works here, the overtime rules can apply, unless an exemption covers the job. Under Sullivan, residence in another state doesn’t change that. An exemption has to meet California’s own test, which isn’t always the same as the federal one. Partial days spent in California are less settled, and the answer depends on the facts.
Do we have to use a California-compliant pay stub for an employee who works here part of the year?
Only if California is the principal place of work or, for employees not mostly in any one state, the base of work operations. That’s the rule from Ward. An employee who spends most of the year working in Arizona and visits California a few weeks a year usually wouldn’t qualify. A California-compliant stub costs little and can eliminate the dispute.
Does a collective bargaining agreement change the analysis?
Not for the wage statement rule. Ward said the base-of-operations test applies regardless of whether a collective bargaining agreement governs the employee’s pay. Overtime is different. Section 510(a) carves out alternative workweek schedules adopted under a collective bargaining agreement, so the answer depends on which statute applies.
What if the employee worked in California only part of a day?
Oman held sections 204 and 226 don’t reach pay periods where the employee works only episodically and for less than a day at a time in California, unless California is the principal place of work or base. Sullivan’s overtime holding addressed full days and weeks. Partial-day work is the gray zone, and it’s where good location records matter most.
If your company is facing a claim from a traveling or out-of-state employee
If your company has received a wage claim or lawsuit from an employee who worked in California only part of the time, the records showing where each day’s work happened usually decide how much of the claim is real. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving overtime and wage statements for multistate employees. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is Labor Code section 510. The cases are Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191, Ward v. United Airlines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732, and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.