Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813 (2026)
Discrimination prohibited
✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
36-2813. Discrimination prohibited
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. No school or landlord may refuse to enroll or lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person solely for his status as a cardholder, unless failing to do so would cause the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.
B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:
1. The person's status as a cardholder.
2. A registered qualifying patient's positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.
C. For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a registered qualifying patient's authorized use of marijuana must be considered the equivalent of the use of any other medication under the direction of a physician and does not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a registered qualifying patient from medical care.
D. No person may be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this chapter, unless the person's behavior creates an unreasonable danger to the safety of the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2017–2023 · leading case: Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019).
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). “1 ; see A.R.S. § 36-2813 ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b) ; Del.”
Gersten v. Sun Pain Mgmt., P.L.L.C., 395 P.3d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Section 36-2813(0) Does Not Provide a Private Cause of Action for its Alleged Violation ¶ 8 The Act does not expressly provide a private cause of action to enforce A.R.S. § 36-2813(0). Nevertheless, as he did in the superior court, Gersten argues A.”
State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018). “¶21 In so holding, we disagree with the State that the AMMA’s anti-discrimination provision, A.R.S. § 36-2813(A), authorizes the legislature to criminalize AMMA-compliant marijuana possession or use on public college and university campuses to preserve federal funding.”
State v. Maestas, 394 P.3d 21 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “” AR.S. § 36-2813(A), But schools and landlords may discriminate to protect federal monetary or licensing benefits.”
Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., 273 F. Supp. 3d 326 (D. Conn. 2017). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813 ; Del. Code Ann.”
Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., 205 A.3d 1144 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “24:6I-14 refutes the notion that any such rights were created by its enactment.”
Darren G. v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-JV 16-0078 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2017). “A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) (2016) states: No person may be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this chapter, unless the person’s behavior creates an unreasonable danger to…”
Felisha S. v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-JV 20-0374 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 27, 2021). “In fact, the court went so far as to recognize that Mother was not required to eliminate use of marijuana to be a fit parent. Instead the court merely considered Mother’s current, daily marijuana use as one factor, in combination with her inability to protect the children and…”
Reynolds v. Willert Mfg. Co., 567 F. Supp. 3d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2021). “, A.R.S. § 36-2813(B)(1)-(2) (explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on either an individual’s “status as a cardholder” or “a registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test”), and Minn.”
Christopher H., Arxit B. v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-JV 17-0167 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017). “¶21 Mother argues on appeal that Father's marijuana use is privileged under A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) (2017), which provides that a medical marijuana cardholder may not be denied various parenting rights for conduct allowed under Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act.”
Terry v. UPS, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0114 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2022). “The AEPA does not, as Terry suggests, limit when an employer may fire an employee who is a medical marijuana cardholder.”
Webster v. Smith, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0145-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022). “And, while it is true that the court found that Mother’s youngest child was “born with marijuana in her system,” and only Father’s speculative testimony could support such finding, this testimony did not prejudice Mother because the court ultimately found “insufficient evidence…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(0): 1 case
Gersten v. Sun Pain Mgmt., P.L.L.C., 395 P.3d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Section 36-2813(0) Does Not Provide a Private Cause of Action for its Alleged Violation ¶ 8 The Act does not expressly provide a private cause of action to enforce A.R.S. § 36-2813(0). Nevertheless, as he did in the superior court, Gersten argues A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(A): 4 cases
State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018). “¶21 In so holding, we disagree with the State that the AMMA’s anti-discrimination provision, A.R.S. § 36-2813(A), authorizes the legislature to criminalize AMMA-compliant marijuana possession or use on public college and university campuses to preserve federal funding.”
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). “1 ; see A.R.S. § 36-2813 ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b) ; Del.”
State v. Maestas, 394 P.3d 21 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “” AR.S. § 36-2813(A), But schools and landlords may discriminate to protect federal monetary or licensing benefits.”
Gersten v. Sun Pain Mgmt., P.L.L.C., 395 P.3d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Section 36-2813(0) Does Not Provide a Private Cause of Action for its Alleged Violation ¶ 8 The Act does not expressly provide a private cause of action to enforce A.R.S. § 36-2813(0). Nevertheless, as he did in the superior court, Gersten argues A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(B): 3 cases
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). “1 ; see A.R.S. § 36-2813 ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b) ; Del.”
Gersten v. Sun Pain Mgmt., P.L.L.C., 395 P.3d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Section 36-2813(0) Does Not Provide a Private Cause of Action for its Alleged Violation ¶ 8 The Act does not expressly provide a private cause of action to enforce A.R.S. § 36-2813(0). Nevertheless, as he did in the superior court, Gersten argues A.”
Lee v. Albertson's LLC, No. 2:19-cv-04493 (D. Ariz. July 7, 2020).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(B)(1): 2 cases
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). “1 ; see A.R.S. § 36-2813 ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b) ; Del.”
Reynolds v. Willert Mfg. Co., 567 F. Supp. 3d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2021). “, A.R.S. § 36-2813(B)(1)-(2) (explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on either an individual’s “status as a cardholder” or “a registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test”), and Minn.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(B)(2): 2 cases
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). “1 ; see A.R.S. § 36-2813 ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b) ; Del.”
Terry v. UPS, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0114 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2022). “The AEPA does not, as Terry suggests, limit when an employer may fire an employee who is a medical marijuana cardholder.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(C): 2 cases
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). “1 ; see A.R.S. § 36-2813 ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b) ; Del.”
Gersten v. Sun Pain Mgmt., P.L.L.C., 395 P.3d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Section 36-2813(0) Does Not Provide a Private Cause of Action for its Alleged Violation ¶ 8 The Act does not expressly provide a private cause of action to enforce A.R.S. § 36-2813(0). Nevertheless, as he did in the superior court, Gersten argues A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(D): 4 cases
Darren G. v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-JV 16-0078 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2017). “A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) (2016) states: No person may be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this chapter, unless the person’s behavior creates an unreasonable danger to…”
Felisha S. v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-JV 20-0374 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 27, 2021). “In fact, the court went so far as to recognize that Mother was not required to eliminate use of marijuana to be a fit parent. Instead the court merely considered Mother’s current, daily marijuana use as one factor, in combination with her inability to protect the children and…”
Christopher H., Arxit B. v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-JV 17-0167 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2017). “¶21 Mother argues on appeal that Father's marijuana use is privileged under A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) (2017), which provides that a medical marijuana cardholder may not be denied various parenting rights for conduct allowed under Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act.”
Webster v. Smith, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0145-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022). “And, while it is true that the court found that Mother’s youngest child was “born with marijuana in her system,” and only Father’s speculative testimony could support such finding, this testimony did not prejudice Mother because the court ultimately found “insufficient evidence…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813(G): 1 case
Gersten v. Sun Pain Mgmt., P.L.L.C., 395 P.3d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Section 36-2813(0) Does Not Provide a Private Cause of Action for its Alleged Violation ¶ 8 The Act does not expressly provide a private cause of action to enforce A.R.S. § 36-2813(0). Nevertheless, as he did in the superior court, Gersten argues A.”
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.