It is unlawful for a person charged or entrusted by another with the employment or continuance in employment of any workmen or laborers to demand or receive, either directly or indirectly, from a workman or laborer employed or continued in employment through his agency or under his direction or control, a fee, commission or gratuity of any kind as the price or condition of the employment of the workman or laborer, or as the price or condition of his continuance in such employment. Any person charged or entrusted with employment of laborers or workmen for his principal, or under whose direction or control the workmen and laborers are engaged in work and labor for the principal, who violates a provision of this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Logan v. Forever Living Prods. Int'l, Inc., 52 P.3d 760 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 38× “Where an employee is terminated by an employer for refusal to accept extortionate demands by the employer, in violation of A.R.S. § 23-202, the employee has a wrongful termination cause of action under the AEPA.”
Josephine Tijerino v. Stetson Desert Proj., LLC, 934 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2019).
“Jane Roe Dancer separately alleges that the Club was unjustly enriched in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-202 . Jane Roe Dancer filed her complaint as a collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals who worked at the Club as dancers.”
Osuna v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “,” and a claim asserting Wal-Mart had violated A.R.S. § 23-202. The trial court denied Osuna leave to amend, stating she was “seeking to, in part, revisit the issue of the contract claims made earlier” and present claims “that could have been pled much earlier.”
Penny Osuna v. Walmart Stores, Inc. Sam's Club (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “,” and a claim asserting Wal-Mart had violated A.R.S. § 23-202. The trial court denied Osuna leave to amend, stating she was “seeking to, in part, revisit the issue of the contract claims made earlier” and present claims “that could have been pled much earlier.”
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.