A. There is created the civil rights division within the department of law which shall include the Arizona civil rights advisory board. The board shall be composed of seven members who shall be appointed by the governor. Not more than four of the members shall at any one time be of the same political party. Each member shall serve for a term of three years. Of the members of the board first appointed, two shall be appointed for terms ending January 31, 1966, two for terms ending January 31, 1967, and three for terms ending January 31, 1968. Thereafter, the terms shall expire on the third Monday in January of the appropriate year.
B. An appointment to fill a vacancy shall be subject to the same limitation with respect to party affiliations as the original appointment.
C. The board shall elect from its membership a chairman and vice chairman. The vice chairman shall act as chairman in the absence or disability of the chairman, or in the event of a vacancy in that office.
D. Four members of the board shall constitute a quorum, except that if the chairman appoints a subcommittee of the board a majority of the members of the subcommittee shall constitute a quorum. The concurrence of four of the members when in session as a board shall be the act of the board.
E. Each member shall receive compensation as determined pursuant to section 38-611 for each day in which he participates in meetings, but not to exceed one thousand dollars in any fiscal year.
F. For the purposes of this chapter, "board" means the Arizona civil rights advisory board and "division" means the civil rights division within the department of law.
Notes of Decisions
Cronin v. Sheldon, 991 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1999).
· cites it 4× “We have consolidated the two cases because in relevant part they involve the same issue: Whether a cause of action alleging the tort of wrongful termination in violation of the public policy set forth in the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.R.S. §§ 41-1401 to -1492 (1999), may…”
Higdon v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines, Inc., 673 P.2d 907 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 4× “conclusions of law and granted judgment, holding that appellee had established a violation of the Arizona Civil Rights Act and the federal Equal Pay Act by demonstrating that she had performed substantially equal work for unequal compensation.”
Arizona Civil Rights Div., Etc. v. Olson, 643 P.2d 723 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 6× “We find that the charge does state a claim under the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. §§ 41-1401 et seq., and therefore reverse.”
Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa Cnty., 943 P.2d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “[5] See A.R.S. §§ 41-1401 through -1492.12. ACRA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against or refuse to hire or accommodate an individual on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap or national origin.”
Gesina v. Gen. Elec. Co., 780 P.2d 1380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “and a violation of Arizona's Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. §§ 41-1401 et seq. Count Two alleged wrongful discharge; Count Three alleged breach of an employment contract based on wrongful discharge; and Count Four alleged breach of employment contract by failing to award him alleged…”
Peterson v. Surprise, 418 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The City argued that to the extent Peterson's wrongful-termination claim was based on her gender, it was barred by her failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. §§ 41-1401 to -1493.04 (2018). The City also denied it had any employment…”
Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC, 322 P.3d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “§ 23 — 1501(3)(b)(i) (2014), constitutionally could curtail a wrongful termination claim brought under the Arizona Civil Rights Act, AR.S. § 41-1401 to -1492 (2014). Id, at 533, ¶ 1, 991 P.”
City of Tempe v. State, 351 P.3d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “¶ 14 Tempe further contends that other articles within the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. §§ 41-1401 to -1493.04, of which the AFHA is included, list public entities within their respective definitions of “person,” evidencing the legislature’s ability to do so when it intends.”
Taylor v. Graham Cnty. Chamber of Com., 33 P.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§§ 41-1401 through 41-1493.02. Plaintifiyappellant Linda Taylor appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, defendant/appellee Graham County Chamber of Commerce (GCCC) on both her tort and contract claims.”
Johnson v. Hispanic Broadcasters of Tucson, Inc., 2 P.3d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “2d 231, ¶ 15 (1999) (§ 23-1501(3)(b)(i) constitutionally limits the remedies available for wrongful terminations in violation of the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. §§ 41-1401 through 41-1493.02). 2 .”
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.