A. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of the employer's employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any individual or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member or applicant for membership because the employee, the member, the applicant or the individual in an apprenticeship or other training or retraining program has opposed any practice that is an unlawful employment practice under this article or has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under article 6 of this chapter.
B. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, employment agency or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs, including on-the-job training programs, to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by a labor organization or relating to any classification or referral for employment by an employment agency or relating to admission or to employment in any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training by a joint labor-management committee indicating any preference, limitation, specification or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, except that a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification or discrimination based on religion, sex or national origin when religion, sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.
C. It is unlawful for an employer, labor organization or employment agency to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by a labor organization or relating to any classification or referral for employment by an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification or discrimination based on age, except that the notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification or discrimination based on age when age is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
Goss v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 3d 878 (D. Ariz. 2018).
Goss v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 3d 878 (D. Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 6× “To bring a claim for violation of A.R.S. § 41-1464, Plaintiff must bring a claim under the Arizona's Civil Rights Act.”
Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 359 F. Supp. 3d 761 (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Nevertheless, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently noted in an unpublished decision that the Arizona Court of Appeals "has applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to wrongful discharge claims under A.”
Najar v. State, 9 P.3d 1084 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “§ 2000e-3(a) and A.R.S. § 41-1464(A). It did not address Najar’s claim that her superiors’ actions in reprimanding and disciplining her had been retaliatory.”
Civil Rights Div. v. Vernick Plumbing & Heating Co., 643 P.2d 1054 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “(1) Was Vernick guilty of wage discrimination? (2) Did Vernick make McGee’s working conditions so intolerable so as to constructively discharge her? The trial court found that there was no constructive discharge but found that Vernick was guilty of wage discrimination and…”
Civil Rights Div. of the Arizona Dep't of Law v. Superior Court, 706 P.2d 745 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“f a union or the hiring, reinstatement or promotion of an individual as an employee or the payment to him of any back pay if such individual was refused admission, suspended or expelled or was refused employment or advancement or was suspended or discharged for any reason other…”
Ariz. Civil Rights Div. v. Hughes Air Corp., 678 P.2d 494 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“er of a union or the hiring, reinstatement or promotion of an individual as an employee or the payment to him of any back pay if such individual was refused admission, suspended or expelled or was refused employment or advancement or was suspended or discharged for any reason…”
Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Kosic, 476 P.2d 834 (Ariz. 1970).
“§ 41-1464 contains a similar exemption from the Arizona employment discrimination laws, A.”
Arizona, Dept. of Law, Civil Rights Div. v. Asarco, 798 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Ariz. 2011).
“No order of the court shall require the admission or reinstatement of an individual as a member of a union or the hiring, reinstatement or promotion of an individual as an employee or the payment to him of any back pay if such individual was refused admission, suspended or…”
Arizona Civil Rights Div., Dep't of Law v. Hughes Air Corp., 678 P.2d 494 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“er of a union or the hiring, reinstatement or promotion of an individual as an employee or the payment to him of any back pay if such individual was refused admission, suspended or expelled or was refused employment or advancement or was suspended or discharged for any reason…”
Bellesfield v. Mountain View Tours Inc. (D. Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 5× “§ 41-1464(A) mirrors Title VII, federal Title VII case law is persuasive in 24 interpreting § 41-1464 (the “Arizona Civil Rights Act” or “ACRA”).”
Czarny v. Hyatt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “¶13 This court has applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to wrongful discharge claims under A.R.S. § 41-1464 (alleged retaliation for asserting employment discrimination violations), see Najar v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1464(A) — 4 cases
Najar v. State, 9 P.3d 1084 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“§ 2000e-3(a) and A.R.S. § 41-1464(A). It did not address Najar’s claim that her superiors’ actions in reprimanding and disciplining her had been retaliatory.”
Bellesfield v. Mountain View Tours Inc. (D. Ariz. 2020).
“§ 41-1464(A) mirrors Title VII, federal Title VII case law is persuasive in 24 interpreting § 41-1464 (the “Arizona Civil Rights Act” or “ACRA”).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1464(B) — 1 case
Bellesfield v. Mountain View Tours Inc. (D. Ariz. 2020).
“§ 41-1464(A) mirrors Title VII, federal Title VII case law is persuasive in 24 interpreting § 41-1464 (the “Arizona Civil Rights Act” or “ACRA”).”
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.