A. Subject to availability of appropriated monies, an employee of this state or any political subdivision who serves in a position determined by the law enforcement merit system council, the director of the department of administration, the Arizona board of regents, the board of directors for the Arizona state schools for the deaf and the blind or the governing body of a political subdivision, in the discretion of the board or body, to be eligible for overtime compensation and who is required to work in excess of the person's normal workweek shall be compensated for the excess time at the following rates:
1. One and one-half times the regular rate at which the person is employed or one and one-half hours of compensatory time off for each hour worked if overtime compensation is mandated by federal law.
2. If federal law does not mandate overtime compensation, the regular rate of pay or compensatory leave on an hour-for-hour basis at the discretion of the board or governing body.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, this state or a political subdivision may provide, by action of the law enforcement merit system council, the Arizona board of regents, the board of directors for the Arizona state schools for the deaf and the blind or the director of the department of administration in the case of this state or of the governing body of the political subdivision, for a workweek of forty hours in less than five days for certain classes of employees employed by this state or the political subdivision.
C. For state agencies of the state personnel system, unless otherwise provided by law, the state workweek is the period of seven consecutive days starting Saturday at 12:00 a.m. and ending Friday at 11:59 p.m. Notwithstanding any other law, the director of the department of administration may authorize a workday, for the method and purpose of recording time entries to be included in a workweek and a pay period for employees of this state who are in the correctional officer class series of the state department of corrections or who are employed at the Arizona state hospital and who are regularly scheduled to work a shift that spans two calendar days, defined as the day a majority of the hours are regularly scheduled to be worked. If the regularly scheduled hours are equally split between two calendar days, the workday is defined as the day the shift ends. Scheduled shift start and end times shall not be adjusted to avoid the payment of overtime.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case:
Roberts v. State, 483 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
Roberts v. State, 483 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “STATE Opinion of the Court Arizona Legislature amended A.R.S. §§ 23-391 and -392 to include the phrase “is mandated by federal law” in 1986, long after enactment of the Portal Act in 1947.”
State v. Boykin, 508 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 4× “Neither do they contend that they come within the statutory implementation of Article 18, § 1 found in A.R.S. § 23-391, subsec. A (1956) which pertains only to manual and mechanical laborers: “A.”
Ables v. Mooney, 264 S.E.2d 424 (W. Va. 1979).
“In Boykin , the Supreme Court of Arizona found no statutory authorization for payment of overtime compensation to state law enforcement officers since the Arizona statute, A.R.S. § 23-391(A), only applied to "manual or mechanical labor" but they did grant the officers…”
O'Keefe v. Utah State Ret. Bd., 929 P.2d 1112 (Utah Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 207 (1994) (requiring payment for employment in excess of forty hours per week "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate"); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 23-391 (1995) (same); Utah Code Ann.”
Marcie a Redgrave v. Doug Ducey, 493 P.3d 878 (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The statute’s use of federal overtime requirements in defining the state’s own overtime rates for public employees, see A.R.S. § 23-391(A)(1) (time and a half “if overtime compensation is mandated by federal law”), (2) (regular compensation “[i]f federal law does not mandate…”
State v. Stone, 443 P.2d 933 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “12, Session Laws of 1933, now A.R.S. § 23-391. . Our indebtedness in this regard is acknowledged in State v.”
State v. Boykin, 502 P.2d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 4× “2d 1147 (1949), and the legislative implementation of it is found in A.R.S. § 23-391: “Hours of labor and minimum wages for public employees doing manual or mechanical labor A.”
Grace v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of SuperVisors, 359 P.2d 73 (Ariz. 1961).
· cites it 6× “Since the trial court resolved the second and third issues and no appeal was taken therefrom, we will consider only the question of whether or not the employees involved in this case fell within the applicable provisions of the minimum wage law, A.R.S. § 23-391. The pertinent…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-391(A) — 1 case
Ables v. Mooney, 264 S.E.2d 424 (W. Va. 1979).
“In Boykin , the Supreme Court of Arizona found no statutory authorization for payment of overtime compensation to state law enforcement officers since the Arizona statute, A.R.S. § 23-391(A), only applied to "manual or mechanical labor" but they did grant the officers…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-391(A)(1) — 1 case
Marcie a Redgrave v. Doug Ducey, 493 P.3d 878 (Ariz. 2021).
“The statute’s use of federal overtime requirements in defining the state’s own overtime rates for public employees, see A.R.S. § 23-391(A)(1) (time and a half “if overtime compensation is mandated by federal law”), (2) (regular compensation “[i]f federal law does not mandate…”
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.