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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-784 (2026)

Agreement for waiver of rights void

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

No agreement by an individual to waive, release or commute his rights to benefits or any other rights under this chapter shall be valid, except an agreement to satisfy child support obligations which is being enforced by the department pursuant to a plan under the child support enforcement act, as amended, which has been approved by the secretary of health and human services under part D of title IV of the social security act, as amended, or an agreement between the individual and the department specifying an amount to be withheld as repayment towards an uncollected overissuance of food stamp coupons.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1961–1998 · leading case: Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Magma Copper Co., 366 P.2d 84 (Ariz. 1961).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Magma Copper Co., 366 P.2d 84 (Ariz. 1961). · cites it 6× “reement the employer Company had the option of continuing to hire or discharge the employees and therefore, ipso facto, the claimants were involuntarily unemployed, and (2) that the collective bargaining contract, if construed as a binding agreement by claimants to be…”
Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 842 P.2d 938 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 84 (1961) (construing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-784 ); General Motors Corp.”
California Portland Cement Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 960 P.2d 65 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Construing a collective bargaining agreement’s retirement provisions so as to deny benefits to one required to retire thereunder but willing and able to work violates at least the spirit if not the language of A.”
St. Joe Paper Co. v. Gautreaux, 180 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). “Construing a collective bargaining agreement's retirement provisions so as to deny benefits to one required to retire thereunder but willing and able to work violates at least the spirit if not the language of A.R.S. § 23-784, supra." We take a like position as to the…”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 502 P.2d 645 (Kan. 1972). “Construing a collective bargaining agreement's retirement provisions so as to deny benefits to one required to retire thereunder but willing and able to work violates at least the spirit if not the language of A.R.S. § 23-784, supra. "It is argued, however, that the decision of…”
Duval Corp. v. Emp. Sec. Com'n, 493 P.2d 413 (N.M. 1972). “(1950), similar in language to A.R.S. § 23-784 and to our § 59-9-18, supra, which states, in part: “ * * * Any agreement by an individual to waive, release, or commute his rights to benefits or any other rights under this act [59-9-1 to 59-9-29] shall be void.”
Harwood v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 490 P.2d 1192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 6× “The appellant has presented three issues for our consideration: First, whether the appellant left her work voluntarily and without good cause in connection with her employment; second, whether the Motorola policy which requires that an employee terminate her employment before…”
Beaman v. Aynes, 393 P.2d 152 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 2× “§ 23-601, and the fact that if the collective bargaining agreement were construed as an agreement by claimants to become voluntarily unemployed upon reaching retirement age, it would be violative of A.R.S. § 23-784 which provides: “No agreement by an individual to waive, release…”
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.