Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532 (2026)

Prohibited personnel practice; violation; reinstatement; exceptions; civil penalty

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. It is a prohibited personnel practice for an employee who has control over personnel actions to take reprisal against an employee for a disclosure of information of a matter of public concern by the employee to a public body that the employee reasonably believes evidences:

1. A violation of any law.

2. Mismanagement, a gross waste of monies or an abuse of authority.

B. The disclosure by an employee to a public body alleging a violation of law, mismanagement, gross waste of monies or abuse of authority shall be in writing and shall contain the following information:

1. The date of the disclosure.

2. The name of the employee making the disclosure.

3. The nature of the alleged violation of law, mismanagement, gross waste of monies or abuse of authority.

4. If possible, the date or range of dates on which the alleged violation of law, mismanagement, gross waste of monies or abuse of authority occurred.

C. An employee who knowingly commits a prohibited personnel practice shall be ordered by the state personnel board, a community college district governing board, a school district governing board, a city or town personnel board or any other appropriate independent personnel board established or authorized pursuant to section 38-534 to pay a civil penalty of up to $5,000 to the state general fund, a county general fund, a community college district unrestricted general fund, a school district maintenance and operation fund or a city or town general fund, whichever is appropriate. The employee who committed the prohibited personnel practice, not the governmental entity, shall pay the civil penalty. On a finding that an employee committed a prohibited personnel practice, the employer shall take appropriate disciplinary action including dismissal, except that on a finding that an employee committed a prohibited personnel practice against an employee who disclosed information that the employee reasonably believed evidenced a violation of any law, the employee who knowingly committed the prohibited personnel practice is subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, the employer shall dismiss the employee and the employee is barred from any future employment by the government entity.

D. An employee or former employee against whom a prohibited personnel practice is committed may recover attorney fees, costs, back pay, general and special damages and full reinstatement for any reprisal resulting from the prohibited personnel practice as determined by the court.

E. An employee does not commit a prohibited personnel practice if he takes reprisal against an employee if that employee discloses information in a manner prohibited by law or the materials or information are prescribed as confidential by law.

F. This section may not be used as a defense in a disciplinary action where the employee is being disciplined for cause pursuant to section 41-773, except in a hearing on a complaint brought pursuant to this section by an employee or former employee who believes he has been the subject of a prohibited personnel practice as prescribed in this section as the result of a disclosure of information.

G. On request or at any time an employee alleges reprisal, an employer shall provide an employee who is subject to disciplinary or corrective action, suspension, demotion or dismissal with a copy of this section.

H. If an employee or former employee believes that a personnel action taken against him is the result of his disclosure of information under this section, he may make a complaint to an appropriate independent personnel board, if one is established or authorized pursuant to section 38-534, or to a community college district governing board, school district governing board or city or town council. If an independent personnel board has not been established or authorized, or if a school district governing board, a community college district governing board or a city or town council does not hear and decide personnel matters brought pursuant to this section, the employee or former employee may make a complaint to the state personnel board. A complaint made pursuant to this subsection shall be made within ten working days after the effective date of the action taken against him. The state personnel board, a school district governing board, a community college district governing board, a city or town council or any other appropriate independent personnel board shall, pursuant to the rules governing appeals under section 41-783, make a determination concerning:

1. The validity of the complaint.

2. Whether a prohibited personnel practice was committed against the employee or former employee as a result of disclosure of information by the employee or former employee.

I. If the state personnel board, a community college district governing board, a school district governing board, a city or town council or any other appropriate independent personnel board established or authorized pursuant to section 38-534 determines that a prohibited personnel practice was committed as a result of disclosure of information by the employee or former employee, it shall rescind the personnel action and order that all lost pay and benefits be returned to the employee or former employee. The employee, former employee, employee alleged to have committed a prohibited personnel practice pursuant to subsection A of this section or employer may appeal the decision of the state personnel board, a community college district governing board, a school district governing board, a city or town council or any other appropriate independent personnel board established or authorized pursuant to section 38-534 to the superior court as provided in title 12, chapter 7, article 6.

J. For purposes of a hearing by the state personnel board, a school district governing board, a community college district governing board, a city or town council or any other appropriate independent personnel board conducted under this section, the employee, former employee, employee alleged to have committed the prohibited personnel practice pursuant to subsection A of this section and employer may be represented by counsel. In addition, representation by counsel in such hearings shall meet any other requirements stipulated by the state personnel board, a school district governing board, a community college district governing board, a city or town council or any other appropriate independent personnel board or as required by law.

K. An employee or former employee may also seek injunctive relief as is otherwise available in civil actions. A court may award reasonable attorney fees to an employee or former employee who prevails in an action pursuant to this section, but the award of attorney fees shall not exceed $10,000.

L. This section shall not be construed to limit or extend the civil or criminal liability of an employee or former employee for any disclosure of information or to limit an employee's right to a separate pretermination hearing with the employee's employer, as provided by law.

M. An employee who knowingly makes a false accusation that a public officer or employee who has control over personnel actions has engaged in a violation of any law, mismanagement, a gross waste of monies or an abuse of authority is personally subject to a civil penalty of up to $25,000 and dismissal from employment by the employer.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Wagner v. City of Globe, 722 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wagner v. City of Globe, 722 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 8× “at 239-245; nevertheless we conclude that on balance actions which enhance the enforcement of our laws or expose unsafe conditions, or otherwise serve some singularly public purpose, will inure to the benefit of the public.”

Mullenaux v. Graham Cnty., 82 P.3d 362 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 15× “¶ 17 As further support for his contention that the superior court had jurisdiction to decide this claim, Mullenaux cites A.R.S. § 38-532, which identifies whistleblower retaliation as a “prohibited personnel practice” and creates a cause of action against an employer for…”

Williams v. Alhambra Sch. Dist. No. 68, 234 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 5× “One of these, A.R.S. § 38-532, proscribes certain whistleblowing-related retaliation and'provides for a mandatory administrative remedy.”

Walters v. Maricopa Cnty., 990 P.2d 677 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 17× “In response, Walters argued that section 38-532 provides an administrative remedy that is permissive, not mandatory.”

McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 24× “She alleged that her discharge was in violation of Arizona's "whistle-blowing" statute, A.R.S. § 38-532. In general terms, the statute, which will be subsequently discussed in greater detail in this opinion, prohibits certain governmental employers from taking reprisal actions…”

Galati v. Am. West Airlines, Inc., 69 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Wagner could also have relied on A.R.S. § 38-532(A)(1)(2001) which makes it a prohibited personnel practice to discharge a public employee in retaliation for that employee’s disclosure of a "violation of any law.”

Wholey v. Roebuck, 803 A.2d 482 (Md. 2002). “110 (Michic 2000)(reporting by state employees); Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 38-532 (West 2001)(whistleblowing by state employees); Ark.”

Dicomes v. State, 782 P.2d 1002 (Wash. 1989). “These statutes cover the discipline of medical practitioners and the funding required to implement disciplinary measures.”

Richard Ceballos v. Gil Garcetti Frank Sundstedt Carol Najera Cnty. of Los Angeles, 361 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2004). “How strange it must now be for the hundreds, if not the thousands, of legislators throughout this country who have voted to enact or to retain such laws now to discover that their votes were essentially meaningless— that the First Amendment already provided public employees with…”

Arizona State Bd. of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 985 P.2d 1032 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 3× “¶3 Arizona State University moved to dismiss the complaint under § 38-532 before the State Personnel Board for the reason that § 38-533 expressly makes the whistle-blower statute inapplicable to claims against a state university that has its own rule for the protection of…”

Arizona State Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 953 P.2d 904 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “If a current or former employee believes a personnel action taken against him or her resulted from a disclosure of information covered by section 38-532, the employee may make a complaint to the appropriate independent personnel board.”

Romley v. Arpaio, 40 P.3d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “”) § 38-532 (1996). Because Gerberry intended to call the Maricopa County Attorney as a witness before the Commission, the County Attorney had a conflict of interest in representing the Sheriff before the Commission in this matter.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(1) — 2 cases

McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1991). “She alleged that her discharge was in violation of Arizona's "whistle-blowing" statute, A.R.S. § 38-532. In general terms, the statute, which will be subsequently discussed in greater detail in this opinion, prohibits certain governmental employers from taking reprisal actions…”

Walters v. Maricopa Cnty., 990 P.2d 677 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In response, Walters argued that section 38-532 provides an administrative remedy that is permissive, not mandatory.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(A) — 2 cases

Arizona State Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 953 P.2d 904 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “If a current or former employee believes a personnel action taken against him or her resulted from a disclosure of information covered by section 38-532, the employee may make a complaint to the appropriate independent personnel board.”

Ruggles v. Arizona, State of (D. Ariz. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(A)(1) — 2 cases

Wagner v. City of Globe, 722 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1986). “at 239-245; nevertheless we conclude that on balance actions which enhance the enforcement of our laws or expose unsafe conditions, or otherwise serve some singularly public purpose, will inure to the benefit of the public.”

Ruggles v. Arizona, State of (D. Ariz. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(A)(1)(2001) — 1 case

Galati v. Am. West Airlines, Inc., 69 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “Wagner could also have relied on A.R.S. § 38-532(A)(1)(2001) which makes it a prohibited personnel practice to discharge a public employee in retaliation for that employee’s disclosure of a "violation of any law.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(A)(2) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(B) — 1 case

McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(D) — 1 case

Walters v. Maricopa Cnty., 990 P.2d 677 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In response, Walters argued that section 38-532 provides an administrative remedy that is permissive, not mandatory.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(E) — 1 case

Planned Parenthood of S. Arizona v. Lawall, 307 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2002).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(G) — 1 case

Walters v. Maricopa Cnty., 990 P.2d 677 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In response, Walters argued that section 38-532 provides an administrative remedy that is permissive, not mandatory.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(H) — 5 cases

Arizona State Bd. of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 985 P.2d 1032 (Ariz. 1999). “¶3 Arizona State University moved to dismiss the complaint under § 38-532 before the State Personnel Board for the reason that § 38-533 expressly makes the whistle-blower statute inapplicable to claims against a state university that has its own rule for the protection of…”

Walters v. Maricopa Cnty., 990 P.2d 677 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In response, Walters argued that section 38-532 provides an administrative remedy that is permissive, not mandatory.”

Sagers v. Panchanathan (D. Ariz. 2021).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532(I) — 1 case

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.