A. The public policy of this state is that:
1. The employment relationship is contractual in nature.
2. The employment relationship is severable at the pleasure of either the employee or the employer unless both the employee and the employer have signed a written contract to the contrary setting forth that the employment relationship shall remain in effect for a specified duration of time or otherwise expressly restricting the right of either party to terminate the employment relationship. Both the employee and the employer must sign this written contract, or this written contract must be set forth in the employment handbook or manual or any similar document distributed to the employee, if that document expresses the intent that it is a contract of employment, or this written contract must be set forth in a writing signed by the party to be charged. Partial performance of employment shall not be deemed sufficient to eliminate the requirements set forth in this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the rights of public employees under the Constitution of Arizona and state and local laws of this state or the rights of employees and employers as defined by a collective bargaining agreement.
3. An employee has a claim against an employer for termination of employment only if one or more of the following circumstances have occurred:
(a) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in breach of an employment contract, as set forth in paragraph 2 of this subsection, in which case the remedies for the breach are limited to the remedies for a breach of contract.
(b) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in violation of a statute of this state. If the statute provides a remedy to an employee for a violation of the statute, the remedies provided to an employee for a violation of the statute are the exclusive remedies for the violation of the statute or the public policy set forth in or arising out of the statute, including the following:
(i) The civil rights act prescribed in title 41, chapter 9.
(ii) The occupational safety and health act prescribed in chapter 2, article 10 of this title.
(iii) The statutes governing the hours of employment prescribed in chapter 2 of this title.
(iv) The agricultural employment relations act prescribed in chapter 8, article 5 of this title.
(v) The statutes governing disclosure of information by public employees prescribed in title 38, chapter 3, article 9.
All definitions and restrictions contained in the statute also apply to any civil action based on a violation of the public policy arising out of the statute. If the statute does not provide a remedy to an employee for the violation of the statute, the employee shall have the right to bring a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy set forth in the statute.
(c) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in retaliation for any of the following:
(i) The refusal by the employee to commit an act or omission that would violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this state.
(ii) The disclosure by the employee in a reasonable manner that the employee has information or a reasonable belief that the employer, or an employee of the employer, has violated, is violating or will violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this state to either the employer or a representative of the employer who the employee reasonably believes is in a managerial or supervisory position and has the authority to investigate the information provided by the employee and to take action to prevent further violations of the Constitution of Arizona or statutes of this state or an employee of a public body or political subdivision of this state or any agency of a public body or political subdivision.
(iii) The exercise of rights under the workers' compensation statutes prescribed in chapter 6 of this title.
(iv) Service on a jury as protected by section 21-236.
(v) The exercise of voting rights as protected by section 16-1012.
(vi) The exercise of free choice with respect to nonmembership in a labor organization as protected by section 23-1302.
(vii) Service in the national guard or armed forces as protected by sections 26-167 and 26-168.
(viii) The exercise of the right to be free from the extortion of fees or gratuities as a condition of employment as protected by section 23-202.
(ix) The exercise of the right to be free from coercion to purchase goods or supplies from any particular person as a condition of employment as protected by section 23-203.
(x) The exercise of a victim's right to leave work as provided in sections 8-420 and 13-4439.
B. If the statute provides a remedy to an employee for a violation of the statute, the remedies provided to an employee for a violation of the statute are the exclusive remedies for the violation of the statute or the public policy prescribed in or arising out of the statute.
Notes of Decisions
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce (2001)
arizctapp · cites it 37×
“¶ 1 This employment termination case presents issues concerning the interplay between the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.”
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. (2003)
arizctapp · cites it 19×
“The trial court dismissed the case, finding that Galati’s action did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-1501 in that he alleged that he was terminated for bringing to light violations of federal regulations.”
Peterson v. Surprise (2018)
arizctapp · cites it 16×
“See A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)(a). Peterson did not cross-appeal from the superior court's entry of summary judgment against her on her claim for breach of contract.”
White v. AKDHC, LLC (2009)
azd · cites it 30×
“None of these physicians, nor any other physician at AKDHC, has kept payments and honoraria received for giving lectures outside the workplace. 1 III. Analysis A.”
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. (2002)
ariz · cites it 10×
“On motion by the defendants, the trial court dismissed the Logans' wrongful discharge action for failure to state a claim under the Arizona Employment Protection Act (AEPA), Ariz.”
Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68 (2017)
azd · cites it 7×
“Count VII: Wrongful Termination Count VII seeks relief under A.R.S. § 23-1501, governing the wrongful termination of employees; specifically, the provisions barring termination in retaliation for the employee’s refusal to violate Arizona law or reporting of violations of Arizona…”
Goss v. United States (2018)
azd · cites it 6×
“§ 41-1484 ; A.R.S. § 23-1501 (A)(b)(ii), (B) (if a statute provides a remedy to an employee for violation of the statute, that remedy is exclusive); Colvin v.”
Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. (2000)
arizctapp · cites it 13×
“Hispanic Broadcasters moved for summary judgment, claiming Johnson was precluded from maintaining the action because his written employment agreement did not satisfy the requirements of A.R.S. § 23-1501. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hispanic Broadcasters, and…”
Fallar v. Compuware Corp. (2002)
azd · cites it 12×
“The Arizona Employment Protection Act preemption of Plaintiffs tort claim for bad faith based on a violation of public policy Plaintiff asserts that his tort claim for bad faith is premised on two theories: bad faith in terminating Plaintiff to avoid paying him disability…”
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. (2008)
arizctapp · cites it 13×
“However, he contends it is not an “employment contract” pursuant to § 12-541(3) because subsection (3) was added to § 12-541 by Senate Bill 1386, which also enacted the Arizona Employment Protection Act (AEPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502. See 1996 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(1) — 5 cases
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. (2003)
arizctapp
“The trial court dismissed the case, finding that Galati’s action did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-1501 in that he alleged that he was terminated for bringing to light violations of federal regulations.”
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce (2001)
arizctapp
“¶ 1 This employment termination case presents issues concerning the interplay between the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.”
Fallar v. Compuware Corp. (2002)
azd
“The Arizona Employment Protection Act preemption of Plaintiffs tort claim for bad faith based on a violation of public policy Plaintiff asserts that his tort claim for bad faith is premised on two theories: bad faith in terminating Plaintiff to avoid paying him disability…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(2) — 10 cases
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce (2001)
arizctapp
“¶ 1 This employment termination case presents issues concerning the interplay between the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.”
White v. AKDHC, LLC (2009)
azd
“None of these physicians, nor any other physician at AKDHC, has kept payments and honoraria received for giving lectures outside the workplace. 1 III. Analysis A.”
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. (2003)
arizctapp
“The trial court dismissed the case, finding that Galati’s action did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-1501 in that he alleged that he was terminated for bringing to light violations of federal regulations.”
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. (2008)
arizctapp
“However, he contends it is not an “employment contract” pursuant to § 12-541(3) because subsection (3) was added to § 12-541 by Senate Bill 1386, which also enacted the Arizona Employment Protection Act (AEPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502. See 1996 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3) — 4 cases
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce (2001)
arizctapp
“¶ 1 This employment termination case presents issues concerning the interplay between the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(a) — 9 cases
Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68 (2017)
azd
“Count VII: Wrongful Termination Count VII seeks relief under A.R.S. § 23-1501, governing the wrongful termination of employees; specifically, the provisions barring termination in retaliation for the employee’s refusal to violate Arizona law or reporting of violations of Arizona…”
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce (2001)
arizctapp
“¶ 1 This employment termination case presents issues concerning the interplay between the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.”
Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. (2008)
arizctapp
“However, he contends it is not an “employment contract” pursuant to § 12-541(3) because subsection (3) was added to § 12-541 by Senate Bill 1386, which also enacted the Arizona Employment Protection Act (AEPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502. See 1996 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(b) — 9 cases
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce (2001)
arizctapp
“¶ 1 This employment termination case presents issues concerning the interplay between the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.”
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. (2003)
arizctapp
“The trial court dismissed the case, finding that Galati’s action did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-1501 in that he alleged that he was terminated for bringing to light violations of federal regulations.”
Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68 (2017)
azd
“Count VII: Wrongful Termination Count VII seeks relief under A.R.S. § 23-1501, governing the wrongful termination of employees; specifically, the provisions barring termination in retaliation for the employee’s refusal to violate Arizona law or reporting of violations of Arizona…”
Fallar v. Compuware Corp. (2002)
azd
“The Arizona Employment Protection Act preemption of Plaintiffs tort claim for bad faith based on a violation of public policy Plaintiff asserts that his tort claim for bad faith is premised on two theories: bad faith in terminating Plaintiff to avoid paying him disability…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(b)(i) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc. (2000)
arizctapp
“Hispanic Broadcasters moved for summary judgment, claiming Johnson was precluded from maintaining the action because his written employment agreement did not satisfy the requirements of A.R.S. § 23-1501. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hispanic Broadcasters, and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(c) — 1 case
Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68 (2017)
azd
“Count VII: Wrongful Termination Count VII seeks relief under A.R.S. § 23-1501, governing the wrongful termination of employees; specifically, the provisions barring termination in retaliation for the employee’s refusal to violate Arizona law or reporting of violations of Arizona…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(c)(i) — 2 cases
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce (2001)
arizctapp
“¶ 1 This employment termination case presents issues concerning the interplay between the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501 through 23-1502, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(c)(i)(ii) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(c)(ii) — 9 cases
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. (2003)
arizctapp
“The trial court dismissed the case, finding that Galati’s action did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-1501 in that he alleged that he was terminated for bringing to light violations of federal regulations.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(c)(iii) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(c)(viii) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(e) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(e)(i) — 1 case
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. (2003)
arizctapp
“The trial court dismissed the case, finding that Galati’s action did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-1501 in that he alleged that he was terminated for bringing to light violations of federal regulations.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(1) — 8 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(2) — 10 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3) — 6 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(a) — 4 cases
Goss v. United States (2018)
azd
“§ 41-1484 ; A.R.S. § 23-1501 (A)(b)(ii), (B) (if a statute provides a remedy to an employee for violation of the statute, that remedy is exclusive); Colvin v.”
Peterson v. Surprise (2018)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)(a). Peterson did not cross-appeal from the superior court's entry of summary judgment against her on her claim for breach of contract.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(b) — 20 cases
Peterson v. Surprise (2018)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)(a). Peterson did not cross-appeal from the superior court's entry of summary judgment against her on her claim for breach of contract.”
Goss v. United States (2018)
azd
“§ 41-1484 ; A.R.S. § 23-1501 (A)(b)(ii), (B) (if a statute provides a remedy to an employee for violation of the statute, that remedy is exclusive); Colvin v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(b)(i) — 2 cases
Peterson v. Surprise (2018)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)(a). Peterson did not cross-appeal from the superior court's entry of summary judgment against her on her claim for breach of contract.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(c) — 8 cases
Peterson v. Surprise (2018)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)(a). Peterson did not cross-appeal from the superior court's entry of summary judgment against her on her claim for breach of contract.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(c)(i) — 8 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(c)(ii) — 28 cases
Peterson v. Surprise (2018)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)(a). Peterson did not cross-appeal from the superior court's entry of summary judgment against her on her claim for breach of contract.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(c)(iii) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(3)(c)(vii) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(c)(ii) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(A)(l) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(B) — 7 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(C)(3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(b)(v) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(c) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(c)(ii) — 1 case
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.