A. Discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry is contrary to the policy of this state and shall be deemed unlawful.
B. No person, directly or indirectly, shall refuse to, withhold from or deny to any person, nor aid in or incite the refusal to deny or withhold, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation.
C. Any person who is under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, who is guilty of boisterous conduct, who is of lewd or immoral character, who is physically violent or who violates any regulation of any place of public accommodation that applies to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry may be excluded from any place of public accommodation and nothing in this article shall be considered to limit the right of such exclusion.
D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article and except as required by federal law, it is not an unlawful practice if a person fails to provide a trained and competent bilingual person who is skilled in interpreting a language other than English to assist a person who is seeking services at a place of public accommodation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article and except as required by federal law, a person who offers a service at a place of public accommodation is not required to provide a person who is seeking the service any form or other documentation in that person's native language.
E. It is not an unlawful practice pursuant to this section for a person to fail to provide service at a place of public accommodation if by providing the service the person offering the service would violate a state or federal law or a rule that is adopted by a state or federal board, commission or agency that has jurisdiction over the person offering the service.
Notes of Decisions
Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1442. It is unlawful under this statute to deny or withhold “accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges thereof’ based on the enumerated characteristics, or to make any distinction “with respect to any person” based on the enumerated…”
State v. Cota, 408 P.2d 23 (Ariz. 1965).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-992 punishment for vagrancy if prior conviction for lewd and lascivious act or conduct; A.R.S. § 41-1442 person may be excluded from place of public accommodation if of lewd or immoral character; A.”
State v. Cota, 408 P.2d 23 (Ariz. 1965).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-992 punishment for vagrancy if prior conviction for lewd and lascivious act or conduct; A.R.S. § 41-1442 person may be excluded from place of public accommodation if of lewd or immoral character; A.”
York v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 9× “section 41-1442, conversion, and 24 intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).”
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix, 418 P.3d 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 41-1442(A) (2017). Accordingly, several Arizona cities have enacted broader ordinances to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.”
Hameen v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc. (D. Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 7× “) Plaintiff 19 responds that “[i]t is well settled in Arizona that A.R.S. § 41-1442 is similar to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1981” and “adopts the same arguments” as to his Section 1981 claim.”
Dragonas v. Macerich (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” 3 A.R.S. § 41-1442. See also Dawson v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa Cty.”
Dragonas v. Macerich (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 41-1442; see also Dawson v. Superior 4 Court, 163 Ariz.”
Carrillo v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 41-1442. 16 “Alleged violations of the ACRA must first be brought to the attention of the Civil Rights 17 Division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office by a written charge.”
Fuentes v. Planet Fitness (D. Ariz. 2022).
“23 § 41-1442, which prohibits “[d]iscrimination in places of public accommodation against 24 any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry,”1 and (2) 42 25 U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1442(A) — 3 cases
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix, 418 P.3d 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“See A.R.S. § 41-1442(A) (2017). Accordingly, several Arizona cities have enacted broader ordinances to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1442(B) — 2 cases
Hameen v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc. (D. Ariz. 2022).
“) Plaintiff 19 responds that “[i]t is well settled in Arizona that A.R.S. § 41-1442 is similar to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1981” and “adopts the same arguments” as to his Section 1981 claim.”
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.