Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-353 (2026)

Payment of wages of discharged employee; violation; classification

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. When an employee is discharged from the service of an employer, he shall be paid wages due him within seven working days or the end of the next regular pay period, whichever is sooner.

B. When an employee quits the service of an employer he shall be paid in the usual manner all wages due him no later than the regular payday for the pay period during which the termination occurred. If requested by the employee, such wages shall be paid by mail.

C. Every employer, including this state and its political subdivisions, shall pay wages or compensation due an employee under this section in lawful money of the United States by negotiable check, draft, money order or warrant, in the case of the state or any political subdivision, which can be immediately redeemed in cash at a bank or other financial institution, payable on demand or by deposit in a financial institution of employee's choice and dated not later than the day upon which the check, draft, money order or warrant is given, and not otherwise.

D. A person violating this section is guilty of a petty offense.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (In Re Amazon.com, Inc.), 905 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (In Re Amazon.com, Inc.), 905 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “016 ("An employer shall pay to the employee wages for each hour the employee works."). Plaintiffs contend that "[t]here has never been any dispute that the time spent undergoing the anti-theft security screening is 'work' under either federal or the various state wage-hour laws.”
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 874 P.2d 982 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 23-353(A) (1983). Withholding wages is forbidden unless “[t]here is a reasonable good faith dispute as to the amount of wages due____” AR.”
Crum v. Maricopa Cnty., 950 P.2d 171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 23-353(A). The parties acknowledge that three working days is the applicable period in this case.”
Abrams v. Horizon Corp., 669 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “Therefore, these later commissions were not “due” at the time of discharge, see A.R.S. §§ 23-353, 23-355, and thus it was correct for the trial commissioner to conclude it would be improper to impose treble damages for failure to pay this portion of the claim at or near the time…”
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., 43 P.3d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “, dissenting) (“The fact that the Ohio legislature considered these protections fundamental is evidenced by the fact that Ohio provided criminal sanctions for violations of the Act.”
Mincy v. Staff Leasing, L.P., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (D. Ariz. 2000). · cites it 4× “; violation of A.R.S. § 23-353, and other state law causes of action quantum meruit, breach of express and implied contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, all related to the wage dispute.”
Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 354 P.2d 28 (Ariz. 1960). · cites it 2× “Thus, A.R.S. § 23-353, subdivision A, provides: “When an employee quits the service, or is discharged therefrom, he shall be paid wages due him, in lawful money of the United States, or by check of even date on a bank, and the wages shall be paid at.”
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “Arizona Revised Statutes § 23-353(B) requires an employer to pay an employee all wages due him no later than the regular payday for the period during which the employee terminates his employment.”
Sao v. Pro-Tech Prods. Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 6× “12 § 23-364(g); and (3) failure to timely pay wages under the Arizona Wage Statute (AWS), 13 A.R.S. § 23-353. Defendants raise multiple affirmative defenses in their Answer, including 14 lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness of Plaintiff’s claims; failure to state…”
Tappan v. Abor (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “The following month, Tappan filed this action alleging unpaid wages in violation of A.R.S. §§ 23-353 and -355 and unjust enrichment.”
Chang v. Major League Constr. LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 23-353(A). 15 Here, Chang asserts that he worked for Defendants for a total of 91.”
Zavaleta v. OTB Acquisition LLC (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 23-353. The statute 6 defines wages as “nondiscretionary compensation due an employee in return for labor or 7 services rendered by an employee for which the employee has a reasonable expectation to 8 be paid whether determined by a time, task, piece, commission or…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-353(A) — 7 cases
Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 874 P.2d 982 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “” A.R.S. § 23-353(A) (1983). Withholding wages is forbidden unless “[t]here is a reasonable good faith dispute as to the amount of wages due____” AR.”
Crum v. Maricopa Cnty., 950 P.2d 171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “See A.R.S. § 23-353(A). The parties acknowledge that three working days is the applicable period in this case.”
Chang v. Major League Constr. LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 23-353(A). 15 Here, Chang asserts that he worked for Defendants for a total of 91.”
Sobh v. Phoenix Graphix Inc. (D. Ariz. 2022).
Miller v. Four Peaks Logistics LLC (D. Ariz. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-353(B) — 3 cases
Patton v. Cnty. of Mohave, 741 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “Arizona Revised Statutes § 23-353(B) requires an employer to pay an employee all wages due him no later than the regular payday for the period during which the employee terminates his employment.”
Sao v. Pro-Tech Prods. Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019). “12 § 23-364(g); and (3) failure to timely pay wages under the Arizona Wage Statute (AWS), 13 A.R.S. § 23-353. Defendants raise multiple affirmative defenses in their Answer, including 14 lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness of Plaintiff’s claims; failure to state…”
Hoppmann v. Pampered Pets & Plants Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-353(D) — 1 case
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., 43 P.3d 174 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “, dissenting) (“The fact that the Ohio legislature considered these protections fundamental is evidenced by the fact that Ohio provided criminal sanctions for violations of the Act.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-353(a) — 1 case
Levy v. Sonoran Rovers LLC (D. Ariz. 2025).
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.