Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-533 (2026)

Exemptions

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

This article does not apply to an employee or former employee of a state university or the board of regents which has in effect at the time a personnel action is taken against the employee a rule or provision for the protection of its employees from reprisal for the disclosure of information to a public body, except that the employee or former employee may appeal the final administrative decision to the superior court as provided in title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Notwithstanding section 12-910, an employee or former employee who has been dismissed is entitled to a trial de novo in superior court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2021 · leading case: McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 20× “A.R.S. § 38-533 is the only statutory provision in article 9 setting forth specific exemptions from the whistle-blowing provisions.”
Arizona State Bd. of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State Univ. v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 985 P.2d 1032 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 5× “The superior court therefore ordered the State Personnel Board to dismiss Kimball’s whistleblower complaint and ordered Arizona State University to proceed with a hearing on Kimball’s grievance under the University’s own Whistleblower Protection Policy.”
Arizona State Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Pers. Bd., 953 P.2d 904 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “section 38-533 (Supp. 1995), which exempts employees of state universities from statutory whistleblower protections under certain conditions, ASU moved to dismiss Kimball’s complaint before the Personnel Board.”
Sagers v. Panchanathan (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 28× “Panchanathan is being sued in his capacity as a state official; and (2) it is barred 3 by A.R.S. § 38-533, which provides that Dr. Panchanathan is “[e]xempt” from suit because 4 he “is an ASU employee.”
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.