Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-374 (2026)

Exercise of rights protected; retaliation prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

23-374. Exercise of rights protected; retaliation prohibited

(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)

A. It shall be unlawful for an employer or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right protected under this article.

B. An employer shall not engage in retaliation or discriminate against an employee or former employee because the person has exercised rights protected under this article. Such rights include but are not limited to the right to request or use earned paid sick time pursuant to this article; the right to file a complaint with the commission or courts or inform any person about any employer's alleged violation of this article; the right to participate in an investigation, hearing or proceeding or cooperate with or assist the commission in its investigations of alleged violations of this article; and the right to inform any person of his or her potential rights under this article.

C. It shall be unlawful for an employer's absence control policy to count earned paid sick time taken under this article as an absence that may lead to or result in discipline, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any other adverse action.

D. Protections of this section shall apply to any person who mistakenly but in good faith alleges violations of this article.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Papias v. Parker (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Papias v. Parker (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 12× “§ 23-374(B) (employer cannot “engage in retaliation or discriminate against an employee” for exercising the “rights protected under this article”); see also A.R.S. § 23-374(A) (“It shall be unlawful for an employer or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the…”

Martin v. Arise Inc. (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 10× “23, 2022) 17 (citing A.R.S. § 23-374(B)). If an employer takes adverse action against an employee 18 within ninety days of the employee’s use of protected paid sick time, it “shall raise a 19 presumption that such action was retaliation, which may be rebutted by clear and 20…”

Gonzalez v. US Human Rights Network (D. Ariz. 2022). · cites it 7× “§ 23- 20 1501(A)(3)(c)(ii), which is also known as the Arizona Employment Protection Act 21 (“AEPA”), and/or under A.R.S. § 23-374. (Doc. 11 ¶¶ 31-34.) Dr. Gonzalez alleges that 22 USHRN terminated her “in retaliation for [her] whistleblowing and reporting that 23 [USHRN]…”

Taylor (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 7× “§ 218c, A.R.S. § 23-374, and A.R.S. § 12- 13 541 are inapposite because Plaintiff’s claim does not relate to tax credits for a qualified 14 health plan or paid sick time and the statute of limitations set forth in A.”

Cadena v. Nextiva Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 23-374. 10 As an initial matter the Court notes that neither party provided the Court with 11 information on how many people are employed by Nextiva.”

Kuramoto v. Heart & Vascular Ctr. of Arizona PC (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-374(B). If an employer takes adverse action against a 3 person within ninety days of the person’s use of paid sick time, it “shall raise a presumption 4 that such action was retaliation[.”

Guernsey v. Elko Wire Rope Inc. (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-374(B). By way of 18 remedies, the Fair Wages Act provides that “if an employer, in violation of this chapter, 19 fails to pay wages due any employee, the employee may recover in a civil action against 20 an employer or former employer an amount that is treble the…”

Pontikis v. Lucid USA Inc. (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 2× “19 § 23-373, (2) unlawful retaliation in violation of A.R.S. § 23-374 and enforcement pursuant 20 to A.”

Labor & EmploymentSick & Safe Leave – Whether Employers May Apply Absence Control Policies to Prevent Abuse of Sick & Safe Leave (Md. Att'y Gen. 2019). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23-374 ; Cal. Lab.”

Maryland Attorney Gen. Opinion 104OAG062 (Md. Att'y Gen. 2019). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23-374 ; Cal. Lab.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-374(A) — 1 case

Papias v. Parker (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 23-374(B) (employer cannot “engage in retaliation or discriminate against an employee” for exercising the “rights protected under this article”); see also A.R.S. § 23-374(A) (“It shall be unlawful for an employer or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-374(B) — 6 cases

Martin v. Arise Inc. (D. Ariz. 2023). “23, 2022) 17 (citing A.R.S. § 23-374(B)). If an employer takes adverse action against an employee 18 within ninety days of the employee’s use of protected paid sick time, it “shall raise a 19 presumption that such action was retaliation, which may be rebutted by clear and 20…”

Kuramoto v. Heart & Vascular Ctr. of Arizona PC (D. Ariz. 2021). “A.R.S. § 23-374(B). If an employer takes adverse action against a 3 person within ninety days of the person’s use of paid sick time, it “shall raise a presumption 4 that such action was retaliation[.”

Gonzalez v. US Human Rights Network (D. Ariz. 2022). “§ 23- 20 1501(A)(3)(c)(ii), which is also known as the Arizona Employment Protection Act 21 (“AEPA”), and/or under A.R.S. § 23-374. (Doc. 11 ¶¶ 31-34.) Dr. Gonzalez alleges that 22 USHRN terminated her “in retaliation for [her] whistleblowing and reporting that 23 [USHRN]…”

Guernsey v. Elko Wire Rope Inc. (D. Ariz. 2023). “A.R.S. § 23-374(B). By way of 18 remedies, the Fair Wages Act provides that “if an employer, in violation of this chapter, 19 fails to pay wages due any employee, the employee may recover in a civil action against 20 an employer or former employer an amount that is treble the…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-374(C) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-374(D) — 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.