Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-544 (2026)
Limitations on reduction of salaries or personnel
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. A governing board may reduce salaries or eliminate certificated teachers in a school district in order to effectuate economies in the operation of the district or to improve the efficient conduct and administration of the schools of the school district.
B. Notice of a general salary reduction shall be given each certificated teacher affected.
C. The provisions of this section do not apply to reductions in salary from monies from the classroom site fund pursuant to section 15-977.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1986–2009 · leading case: Hampton v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist., 837 P.2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Hampton v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist., 837 P.2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Further, it would constitute an unlawful interference with an existing contract and the Court further finds that the plaintiff, by entering into an employment contract with another, has waived the notice requirements of [A.”
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 961 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Hampton is inapposite, however, because the school district’s nonrenewal of the probationary teacher’s contract in that case specifically was “due to a reduction of certificated staff necessitated by a reduction of enrollment and/or elimination of course offerings,” and the…”
Wallace v. Casa Grande Union High Sch. Dist. No. 82, 909 P.2d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “82 Board of Governors (the District) and its superintendent, Ted Adams, alleging the following claims: (1) defamation; (2) failure to pay salary in violation of A.R.S. § 15-544; (3) wrongful denial of continuing status (or tenure); (4) intentional interference with contractual…”
Paczosa v. Cartwright Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 83, 213 P.3d 222 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “4 Accordingly, we *81 need not address the amount of pay to which Paezosa and Faulkner would be entitled under A.R.S. § 15-544 if they returned to teach at the District.”
Taborn v. Hammonds, 380 S.E.2d 513 (N.C. 1989). “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15-544 (C) (1988); Ky.”
Wallace v. Casa Grande Sc. Bd. of Gov., 909 P.2d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “82 Board of Governors (the District) and its superintendent, Ted Adams, alleging the following claims: (1) defamation; (2) failure to pay salary in violation of A.R.S. § 15-544; (3) wrongful denial of continuing status (or tenure); (4) intentional interference with contractual…”
Hillhouse v. Rice Sch. Dist. No. 20, 727 P.2d 843 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “If, instead, the dismissal is the result of a reduction in force, the district must comply with A.R.S. § 15-544 before a continuing teacher may be terminated.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-544(0) — 1 case
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 961 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Hampton is inapposite, however, because the school district’s nonrenewal of the probationary teacher’s contract in that case specifically was “due to a reduction of certificated staff necessitated by a reduction of enrollment and/or elimination of course offerings,” and the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-544(A) — 2 cases
Wallace v. Casa Grande Union High Sch. Dist. No. 82, 909 P.2d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “82 Board of Governors (the District) and its superintendent, Ted Adams, alleging the following claims: (1) defamation; (2) failure to pay salary in violation of A.R.S. § 15-544; (3) wrongful denial of continuing status (or tenure); (4) intentional interference with contractual…”
Wallace v. Casa Grande Sc. Bd. of Gov., 909 P.2d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “82 Board of Governors (the District) and its superintendent, Ted Adams, alleging the following claims: (1) defamation; (2) failure to pay salary in violation of A.R.S. § 15-544; (3) wrongful denial of continuing status (or tenure); (4) intentional interference with contractual…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-544(C) — 2 cases
Hampton v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist., 837 P.2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Further, it would constitute an unlawful interference with an existing contract and the Court further finds that the plaintiff, by entering into an employment contract with another, has waived the notice requirements of [A.”
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 961 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Hampton is inapposite, however, because the school district’s nonrenewal of the probationary teacher’s contract in that case specifically was “due to a reduction of certificated staff necessitated by a reduction of enrollment and/or elimination of course offerings,” and the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.