Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1401 (2026)

Civil rights division; definition

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

41-1401. Civil rights division; definition

A. The civil rights division within the department of law is established.

B. For the purposes of this chapter, "division" means the civil rights division within the department of law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). · cites it 2× “(1998); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41-1401 et seq. (1999); Ark.”
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 .”
Gladys Banks v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 802 F.2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “, Ariz. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 41-1401 et seq. (1956 & Supp.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
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.