23-375. Notice
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. Employers shall give employees written notice of the following at the commencement of employment or by July 1, 2017, whichever is later: employees are entitled to earned paid sick time and the amount of earned paid sick time, the terms of its use guaranteed under this article, that retaliation against employees who request or use earned paid sick time is prohibited, that each employee has the right to file a complaint if earned paid sick time as required by this article is denied by the employer or the employee is subjected to retaliation for requesting or taking earned paid sick time, and the contact information for the commission where questions about rights and responsibilities under this article can be answered.
B. The notice required in subsection A shall be in English, Spanish, and any language that is deemed appropriate by the commission.
C. The amount of earned paid sick time available to the employee, the amount of earned paid sick time taken by the employee to date in the year and the amount of pay the employee has received as earned paid sick time shall be recorded in, or on an attachment to, the employee's regular paycheck.
D. The commission shall create and make available to employers, in English, Spanish, and any language deemed appropriate by the commission, model notices that contain the information required under subsection A for employers' use in complying with subsection A.
E. An employer who violates the notice requirements of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty according to section 23-364(F), Arizona Revised Statutes.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona Chamber of Com. & Indus. v. Kiley, 399 P.3d 80 (Ariz. 2017).
“§ 23-375(D). ¶ 17 We agree with Petitioners that the provisions requiring the ICA to promulgate guidelines or regulations and to create model notices constitute a “mandatory expenditure of state revenues,” as contemplated by the Revenue Source Rule, § 23(A).”
Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 23× “Next, in Olson, Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson granted a 28 1 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that § 23-375 “does not provide a 2 private cause of action for the recovery of civil penalties.”
Papias v. Parker (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “The court also found that the “undisputed record” demonstrated Parker complied with the notice requirements under § 23-375 (A) and (C) because Parker provided Papias with the required data through Paychex.”
Finton v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. LLC (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 8× “16 A.R.S. § 23-375(C). “‘Employee’s regular paycheck’ means a regular payroll record that 17 is readily available to employees and contains the information required by A.”
Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “) The Court determined that 11 "there is no private right of action to seek civil penalties for violations of § 23-375(A) or 12 (C) . . . ." and noted that "[n]either the Arizona Supreme Court nor the Arizona Court of 13 Appeals have determined whether an individual employee may…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-375(A) — 3 cases
Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
“Next, in Olson, Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson granted a 28 1 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that § 23-375 “does not provide a 2 private cause of action for the recovery of civil penalties.”
Papias v. Parker (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“The court also found that the “undisputed record” demonstrated Parker complied with the notice requirements under § 23-375 (A) and (C) because Parker provided Papias with the required data through Paychex.”
Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC (D. Ariz. 2024).
“) The Court determined that 11 "there is no private right of action to seek civil penalties for violations of § 23-375(A) or 12 (C) . . . ." and noted that "[n]either the Arizona Supreme Court nor the Arizona Court of 13 Appeals have determined whether an individual employee may…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-375(C) — 3 cases
Finton v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. LLC (D. Ariz. 2021).
“16 A.R.S. § 23-375(C). “‘Employee’s regular paycheck’ means a regular payroll record that 17 is readily available to employees and contains the information required by A.”
Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
“Next, in Olson, Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson granted a 28 1 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that § 23-375 “does not provide a 2 private cause of action for the recovery of civil penalties.”
Papias v. Parker (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“The court also found that the “undisputed record” demonstrated Parker complied with the notice requirements under § 23-375 (A) and (C) because Parker provided Papias with the required data through Paychex.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-375(D) — 1 case
Arizona Chamber of Com. & Indus. v. Kiley, 399 P.3d 80 (Ariz. 2017).
“§ 23-375(D). ¶ 17 We agree with Petitioners that the provisions requiring the ICA to promulgate guidelines or regulations and to create model notices constitute a “mandatory expenditure of state revenues,” as contemplated by the Revenue Source Rule, § 23(A).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-375(E) — 2 cases
Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC (D. Ariz. 2022).
“Next, in Olson, Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson granted a 28 1 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that § 23-375 “does not provide a 2 private cause of action for the recovery of civil penalties.”
Vega v. All My Sons Bus. Dev. LLC (D. Ariz. 2024).
“) The Court determined that 11 "there is no private right of action to seek civil penalties for violations of § 23-375(A) or 12 (C) . . . ." and noted that "[n]either the Arizona Supreme Court nor the Arizona Court of 13 Appeals have determined whether an individual employee may…”
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.