The California Court of Appeal has upheld an order requiring Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) to comply with a subpoena from the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). The court's decision, filed on August 11, 2026, comes in response to a complaint from a former employee alleging discrimination and retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This ruling is significant as it reinforces the CRD's authority to investigate claims of workplace discrimination, even when the alleged conduct occurred outside of California.
The case, identified by docket number B346853, began when a former SpaceX employee filed a complaint with the CRD in April 2024. The employee alleged that she faced discrimination and retaliation while working for SpaceX, which is headquartered in California but had her based in its Redmond, Washington office. The employee claimed she was paid less than a male counterpart and was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less experienced male employee. She also alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her involvement in raising concerns about a hostile work environment.
After receiving the complaint, the CRD issued a subpoena to SpaceX, seeking documents and information relevant to the employee's allegations. SpaceX objected to the subpoena, arguing that the CRD lacked jurisdiction because the employee was a resident of Washington and that the alleged discriminatory conduct fell outside the territorial reach of FEHA. Despite these objections, SpaceX did provide some limited information but did not fully comply with the CRD's requests.
The CRD subsequently petitioned the Los Angeles Superior Court to compel SpaceX to comply with the subpoena. The court granted the CRD's petition, leading SpaceX to appeal the decision. The appellate court's ruling affirmed the lower court's order, stating that SpaceX had not demonstrated that the CRD lacked jurisdiction or that the subpoena violated any constitutional provisions.
The court noted, "SpaceX has not met its burden to show error on any of these grounds. Accordingly, we affirm." The judges presiding over the case were Acting Presiding Justice Egerton, Justice Adams, and Justice Karnow.
This ruling is particularly important for employees and employers alike, as it clarifies the CRD's authority to investigate claims of discrimination that may involve non-residents or actions taken outside of California. The court highlighted that FEHA applies to non-California residents if the discriminatory conduct has a substantial connection to California.
The court's decision also underscores the importance of protecting employees' rights against discrimination, regardless of where they are based. It reinforces the notion that employers cannot evade accountability by operating outside of California's jurisdiction.
Looking ahead, this ruling may have implications for other companies with employees based in multiple states. Employers may need to reassess their policies and practices to ensure compliance with California's employment laws, especially if they have a significant presence in the state.
As for SpaceX, the company may consider appealing the ruling to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. This case may also set a precedent for future investigations by the CRD into workplace discrimination claims that involve employees working outside of California.