Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813 (2026)

Discrimination prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

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).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

jtsg/zurich v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “¶11 Petitioners’ briefs argued that Martinez failed to establish he was a qualifying patient under the AMMA and therefore the Employer could not violate the AMMA’s anti-discrimination provision in A.R.S. § 36-2813. They also argued that the ALJ erred in not applying the…”

Terry v. UPS (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-2813(B)(2). Citing this statute, Terry argues the “AMMA identifies two — and only two — circumstances under which an employer may take adverse employment action against an employee with a medical marijuana card.”

Webster v. Smith (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 36-2813(D). Although the superior court found that Mother has a history of drug use, it also found that she has been sober for more than four years.”

Felisha S. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) (emphasis added). Mother eventually obtained a valid medical marijuana card, and asserts she was using marijuana to help with pain in compliance with the AMMA.”

Reynolds v. Willert Mfg. Co., LLC (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.”

Lee v. Albertson's LLC (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 36-2813(B). 3 In April 2011, the Arizona Legislature enacted the Drug Testing of Employees Act 4 (“DTEA”).”

Hudnell v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp. (E.D. Pa. 2020). “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2813 (B)(1)-(2). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court applies a three-part test, derived from Cort v.”

Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019). · cites it 80× “1 ; see A.R.S. § 36-2813 ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b) ; Del.”

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.”

Justin Wild Vs. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. (l-0687-17, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “§ 21a-408p(b)(3)); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-2813 , but those authorities are also distinguishable because our Compassionate Use Act is simply silent on the subject except to the extent N.”

State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, 417 P.3d 774 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 18× “¶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.”

Gersten v. Sun Pain Mgmt., P.L.L.C., 395 P.3d 310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 35× “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.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— 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.”