Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1830.13 (2026)

Review of council decision by agency director; appeal; reinstatement

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Within fourteen days of receipt of the finding or recommendation by the council pursuant to section 41-1830.12, the director of the employing agency shall accept, modify or reverse the council's decision or accept, modify or reject the council's recommendation. The director shall accept the council's recommendation unless the recommendation is arbitrary or without reasonable justification. If the director does not accept the council's recommendation, the director shall state the reason or reasons for rejecting the recommendation. The decision of the director of the employing agency is final and binding. The director of the employing agency shall send a copy of the agency's final determination to the employee pursuant to section 41-1830.12.

B. Except as provided in section 41-1092.08, subsection H, a classified employee who is suspended, is demoted, has pay reduced, loses accrued leave time or is dismissed pursuant to this article, after a fair hearing and review before the law enforcement merit system council and review of the suspension, demotion, reduction in pay, loss of accrued leave time or dismissal by the director of the employing agency, may appeal the determination of the council and the final determination of the director of the employing agency pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6.

C. In addition to the trial court's powers as prescribed in section 12-911, if the court overrules the determination of the council or the director of the employing agency, the employee shall be reinstated in the employee's position and the employee shall receive full compensation for any salary withheld pending the determination by the council, the director of the employing agency and court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2016 · leading case: Rash v. Town of Mammoth, 315 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rash v. Town of Mammoth, 315 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 41-1830.13(B). 4 . At oral argument, the Commission argued for the first time that its local rules made the ARA applicable and asked us to take judicial notice of them.”

Lincoln v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “See A.R.S. § 41-1830.13(A). Lincoln appealed, and the superior court affirmed.”

Shelton v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 41-1830.13(A). In this case, the Director could reasonably conclude the Council’s recommended discipline lacked reasonable justification.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1830.13(A) — 2 cases

Lincoln v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “See A.R.S. § 41-1830.13(A). Lincoln appealed, and the superior court affirmed.”

Shelton v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “” A.R.S. § 41-1830.13(A). In this case, the Director could reasonably conclude the Council’s recommended discipline lacked reasonable justification.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1830.13(B) — 1 case

Rash v. Town of Mammoth, 315 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “See A.R.S. § 41-1830.13(B). 4 . At oral argument, the Commission argued for the first time that its local rules made the ARA applicable and asked us to take judicial notice of them.”

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.