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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362 (2026)

Minimum wage; prohibition

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

 

(L97, Ch. 51, sec. 1.  Caution:  1998 Prop. 105 applies.)

 

A. The legislature declares that the establishment of a uniform minimum wage is a matter of statewide concern.

B. No political subdivision of this state may establish, mandate or otherwise require a minimum wage that exceeds the federal minimum wage prescribed in 29 United States Code section 206.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (62 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Winkle v. City of Tucson, 949 P.2d 502 (Ariz. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Winkle v. City of Tucson, 949 P.2d 502 (Ariz. 1997). · cites it 12× “FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Signed on April 4, 1997, A.R.S. § 23-362 declared minimum wage a matter of statewide concern and forbade any governmental subdivision from establishing a minimum wage in excess of the federal minimum wage.”
Aaron Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball, 934 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2019). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23-362 ; Ariz. Admin.”
Roberts v. State, 483 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “3 Two statutes numbered § 23-362 appear in the code, one titled “Minimum wage; prohibition” in Article 7 of Chapter 2 of Title 23 and the second titled “Definitions” in Article 8 of the same chapter.”
Arizona Chamber of Com. & Indus. v. Kiley, 399 P.3d 80 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-362(B). The Proposition’s minimum wage provisions went into effect on January 1, 2017, and the sick leave provisions went into effect on July 1, 2017.”
Meyer v. State, 436 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “The Minimum Wage Act is codified at A.R.S. §§ 23-362, -363, and -364. The central provision at issue in this appeal falls under the enforcement provision, A.”
Associated v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 15× “; see also A.R.S. §§ 23-362 to -64 (2007). As amended, § 23-362 defined certain terms, including “wage,” which it defined as “monetary compensation due to an employee by reason of employment[.”
Monge v. DH Brewing Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 10× “” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). It defines an 23 “employer” as “any corporation, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability 24 company, trust, association, political subdivision of the state, [and] individual or other 25 entity acting directly or indirectly in the…”
Peralta v. Custom Image Pros LLC (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 8× “” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). AMWA defines an “employer” as “any corporation 23 proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, trust, association, 24 political subdivision of the state, individual or other entity acting directly or indirectly in 25 the interest…”
Romero v. Synergy Restoration LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 8× “” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). To determine whether a worker is an 11 employee as opposed to an independent contractor, AZMWA places the “burden of 12 proof .”
Chang v. Major League Constr. LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 8× “§ 203 (e)(1); A.R.S. § 23-362(8)(A-C); 19 A.R.S. § 23-350(2).”
Stamper v. Freebird Logistics Inc. (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 7× “18 § 23-362(A); A.R.S. § 23-350(2). Accordingly, he argues that he is entitled to statutorily 19 guaranteed unpaid and overtime wages, as well as unpaid minimum wages.”
Hetland v. Hirsch (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 6× “” A.R.S. § 23-362(B).6 14 To determine whether a worker is an employee under the AMWA as opposed to an 15 independent contractor, the AMWA instructs courts to look “to the standards of the federal 16 [FLSA].”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(8) — 1 case
Chang v. Major League Constr. LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). “§ 203 (e)(1); A.R.S. § 23-362(8)(A-C); 19 A.R.S. § 23-350(2).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(8)(A) — 1 case
Chang v. Major League Constr. LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). “§ 203 (e)(1); A.R.S. § 23-362(8)(A-C); 19 A.R.S. § 23-350(2).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(8)(B) — 1 case
Chang v. Major League Constr. LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). “§ 203 (e)(1); A.R.S. § 23-362(8)(A-C); 19 A.R.S. § 23-350(2).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(8)(C) — 1 case
Chang v. Major League Constr. LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). “§ 203 (e)(1); A.R.S. § 23-362(8)(A-C); 19 A.R.S. § 23-350(2).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(A) — 21 cases
Roberts v. State, 483 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “3 Two statutes numbered § 23-362 appear in the code, one titled “Minimum wage; prohibition” in Article 7 of Chapter 2 of Title 23 and the second titled “Definitions” in Article 8 of the same chapter.”
Million v. Pindernation Holdings LLC (D. Ariz. 2023).
Monge v. DH Brewing Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). It defines an 23 “employer” as “any corporation, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability 24 company, trust, association, political subdivision of the state, [and] individual or other 25 entity acting directly or indirectly in the…”
Romero v. Synergy Restoration LLC (D. Ariz. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). To determine whether a worker is an 11 employee as opposed to an independent contractor, AZMWA places the “burden of 12 proof .”
Smith v. K9 Games AZ LLC (D. Ariz. 2020).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(B) — 33 cases
Arizona Chamber of Com. & Indus. v. Kiley, 399 P.3d 80 (Ariz. 2017). “See A.R.S. § 23-362(B). The Proposition’s minimum wage provisions went into effect on January 1, 2017, and the sick leave provisions went into effect on July 1, 2017.”
Associated v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “; see also A.R.S. §§ 23-362 to -64 (2007). As amended, § 23-362 defined certain terms, including “wage,” which it defined as “monetary compensation due to an employee by reason of employment[.”
Thomas v. Khatri LLC (D. Ariz. 2025).
Cramton v. Grabbagreen Franchising LLC (D. Ariz. 2019).
Rosen v. Fasttrak Foods LLC (D. Ariz. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(C) — 6 cases
Tolano v. El Rio Bakery (D. Ariz. 2019).
Nichol v. On Point Solar Power LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
Davis v. Shri Hari Hotels LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
Jimenez v. Terrific Tree Trimmer LLC (D. Ariz. 2023).
Sandell v. DH Brewing Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(D) — 9 cases
Hetland v. Hirsch (D. Ariz. 2022). “” A.R.S. § 23-362(B).6 14 To determine whether a worker is an employee under the AMWA as opposed to an 15 independent contractor, the AMWA instructs courts to look “to the standards of the federal 16 [FLSA].”
Stamper v. Freebird Logistics Inc. (D. Ariz. 2022). “18 § 23-362(A); A.R.S. § 23-350(2). Accordingly, he argues that he is entitled to statutorily 19 guaranteed unpaid and overtime wages, as well as unpaid minimum wages.”
Peralta v. Custom Image Pros LLC (D. Ariz. 2023). “” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). AMWA defines an “employer” as “any corporation 23 proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, trust, association, 24 political subdivision of the state, individual or other entity acting directly or indirectly in 25 the interest…”
Monge v. DH Brewing Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 23-362(A). It defines an 23 “employer” as “any corporation, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, limited liability 24 company, trust, association, political subdivision of the state, [and] individual or other 25 entity acting directly or indirectly in the…”
Pulido v. Desert Platinum Props. LLC (D. Ariz. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-362(E) — 1 case
Associated v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “; see also A.R.S. §§ 23-362 to -64 (2007). As amended, § 23-362 defined certain terms, including “wage,” which it defined as “monetary compensation due to an employee by reason of employment[.”
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.