Arizona
Arizona Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Arizona protects private-sector employees from wrongful termination under the Arizona Employment Protection Act, A.R.S. 23-1501, when they refuse to violate the law or report a violation to their employer or a public body. A.R.S. 38-532 extends similar protections to state employees facing reprisal for reporting misconduct.
A Summary of Arizona Whistleblower laws
The state of Arizona has several laws that are designed to protect whistleblowers. However, the employment-at-will doctrine is still practiced; this means employees can be fired at will unless the reason for dismissal is against a statute, contract, or constitutional provision. The Arizona legislature passed the Arizona Employment Protection Act (AEPA) to protect employees in the private sector from retaliation in the form of wrongful termination. In addition, Arizona adopted narrow statutory protections with specified remedies for specific prohibited activities. AEPA does not cover any form of retaliation unless it is a discharge. In instances where a statute does not provide a specific remedy, an employee can file a lawsuit for wrongful termination.
This is a summary of Arizona Whistleblower Laws, make sure to check out the Federal Whistleblower Laws as well.
Whistleblower rights in Arizona
Arizona Employment Protection Act
An employee cannot be discharged in retaliation if the employee discloses that he or she has information or has a reasonable belief that the employer or a fellow employee has violated, will violate, or is violating the state's statutes or the state's constitution. However, for the protection to be valid, the employee (whistleblower) has to disclose the information to either the employer or a representative of the employer who the employee believes has the authority to stop or prevent the violation or to the relevant public body. Also, AEPA protects employees against other forms of retaliation such as:
An employee cannot be discharged for:
-
Refusing to participate or carry out an act that would violate the statutes and constitution of Arizona.
-
Refusing to join a labor organization.
-
Exercising the right to vote, right to leave work, right to claim workers' compensation, right to be free from the extortion of fees or gratuities as a condition of employment, and right to be free from coercion to purchase goods or supplies as a condition of employment.
While AEPA does not cover other forms of retaliation other than a discharge, if an employee leaves a job because the working conditions became extremely intolerable, AEPA can consider this as a ''constructive discharge'' therefore protecting the employee under the act. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501.
Arizona Whistleblower Statutory Protections
State employees
Under this statute, an employer or state employee who has control over personnel actions is not allowed to discharge or perform any form of reprisal against a state employee for reporting a violation of any law, mismanagement, abuse of authority, or waste of funds to a public body. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532
Arizona Discrimination
It is against the law for an employer to discriminate against employees or job applicants in retaliation for opposing discriminatory actions. It is also illegal to discriminate against the employee in retaliation for making a charge, or assisting and participating in any manner in a proceeding related to Arizona's civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1464.
Minimum Wages for minors
An employer cannot discharge or retaliate against an employee in any manner for serving, testifying, or assisting in a proceeding or investigation related to wages paid to minors. An employer accused of violating the minimum fair wage order may be charged with a petty offense or a class 3 misdemeanor. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-329.
Occupational Safety and Health Arizona Whistleblowers
An employee shall not be discharged or suffer any form of retaliation for filing a complaint or instituting a proceeding or testifying in a proceeding related to Arizona's occupational safety and health laws on behalf of himself or others. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-425.
Pesticide Control
An employee shall not be discharged or suffer any form of retaliation for filing a complaint or instituting a proceeding or testifying in a proceeding related to Arizona pesticide control laws on behalf of himself or others. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-376.
Whistleblower Hotlines in Arizona
In case you suffer discrimination, you can submit a complaint by filling a questionnaire on the Arizona Civil Rights Division website or call the division's office at Phoenix (602) 542-5263 or Tucson (520) 628-6500.
For issues concerning Occupational Safety and Health, call the Industrial Commission of Arizona at (602) 542-5795 Phoenix Office or (520) 628-5478 Tucson Office.
For retaliation or issues concerning pesticide control, call the attorney general's office at Phoenix (602) 542-5025 or Tucson (520) 628-6504 or Prescott (928) 778-1265.
Whistleblower Retaliation Claims in Arizona
Arizona Employment Protection Act
Generally, under the Arizona Employment Protection Act, an employee who has suffered retaliation in the form of discharge can file a lawsuit within one year of the retaliation, unless stated otherwise by a statute.
State Employees
State employees are required to lodge a complaint with the relevant independent personnel board within 10 days of the retaliation.
Discrimination
Employees are required to file a complaint with the Arizona Civil Rights Division within 180 days of the retaliation. In case the division dismisses the complaint, the employee can file a lawsuit within 90 days of receiving the dismissal information. Also, lawsuits should be filed within one year of filing the complaint with the Arizona Civil Rights Division.
Occupational Safety and health
Employees who have suffered retaliation in a matter concerning this statute can file a complaint with the Industrial Commission of Arizona within 30 days of the retaliation. The commission is then required to notify the complainant of its determination within 90 days of the filing of the complaint.
Pesticide
A violation of this statute must be filed within 180 days after which the attorney general may bring a lawsuit against the employer after determining that a wrongful retaliation or termination occurred.
Retaliation and Violation Penalties in Arizona
Unless stated otherwise by a statute, employees who suffer retaliation may be awarded appropriate relief including rehiring, payment of back pay, covering of attorney fees, and punitive damages.
State employees
Employees who retaliate against other employees for reporting misconduct, mismanagement, or waste under this statute may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $5,000. If the underlying disclosure specifically evidenced a violation of law, the penalty rises to up to $10,000, and the retaliating employee must be dismissed and barred from future employment by the government entity.
Discrimination
If a court determines a violation of this statute occurred, it may enjoin the employer from continuing the unlawful practice and order reinstatement or hiring of the employee, with back pay limited to the two years before the charge was filed (reduced by any interim earnings). The prevailing employee can also recover a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs. Arizona Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1464, 41-1481.
Minimum Wages for minors
A person found guilty of violating this statute may be liable for the amount of wages due to the person affected by the violation. In case of a civil action, the court may award the balance of remaining wages plus covering of lawsuit costs.
Click for an overview of the Federal Whistleblower Laws .
More Arizona Laws
Updates
Corrected the Discrimination-retaliation remedies description, which had cited the compensatory-damages/$5,000-$10,000 civil-penalty language from Arizona's voting-rights and public-accommodations enforcement statute; the actual employment-discrimination retaliation remedies under A.R.S. § 41-1481 are an injunction, reinstatement or hiring with back pay, and attorney fees.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Restored A.R.S. 38-532's base $5,000 civil-penalty tier: the $10,000 penalty (plus mandatory dismissal and a government-employment bar) applies only when the retaliation targeted a disclosure specifically about a violation of law, not to mismanagement or waste reports generally.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 23 (Labor), Chapter 9 (EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT), Article 1 (General Provisions)
§ 23-1501Severability of employment relationships; protection from retaliatory discharges; exclusivity of statutory remedies in employmentIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. The public policy of this state is that: 1. The employment relationship is contractual in nature. 2. The employment relationship is severable at the pleasure of either the employee or the employer unless both the employee and the employer have signed a written contract to the contrary setting forth that the employment relationship shall remain in effect for a specified duration of time or otherwise expressly restricting the right of either party to terminate the employment relationship. Both the employee and the employer must sign this written contract, or this written contract must be set forth in the employment handbook or manual or any similar document distributed to the employee, if that document expresses the intent that it is a contract of employment, or this written contract must be set forth in a writing signed by the party to be charged. Partial performance of employment shall not be deemed sufficient to eliminate the requirements set forth in this paragraph.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 159 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cronin v. Sheldon (Arizona Supreme Court 1999, 195 Ariz. 531)“…remedies provision of the Employment Protection Act (EPA), A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(b)(i) (Supp.1998). The state legisla…”
- Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. (Arizona Supreme Court 2002, 203 Ariz. 191)“…s a condition of employment as protected by § 23-202.” A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(viii). This 3…”
- Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2003, 205 Ariz. 290)“…the case, finding that Galati’s action did not comply with A.R.S. § 23-1501 in that he alleged that he was terminat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights, Arizona At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 38 (Public Officers and Employees), Chapter 3 (CONDUCT OF OFFICE), Article 9 (Disclosure of Information by Public Employees)
§ 38-532Prohibited personnel practice; violation; reinstatement; exceptions; civil penaltyIn force
A. It is a prohibited personnel practice for an employee who has control over personnel actions to take reprisal against an employee for a disclosure of information of a matter of public concern by the employee to a public body that the employee reasonably believes evidences: 1. A violation of any law. 2. Mismanagement, a gross waste of monies or an abuse of authority. B. The disclosure by an employee to a public body alleging a violation of law, mismanagement, gross waste of monies or abuse of authority shall be in writing and shall contain the following information: 1. The date of the disclosure. 2. The name of the employee making the disclosure. 3. The nature of the alleged violation of law, mismanagement, gross waste of monies or abuse of authority. 4. If possible, the date or range of dates on which the alleged violation of law, mismanagement, gross waste of monies or abuse of authority occurred. C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wagner v. City of Globe (Arizona Supreme Court 1986, 150 Ariz. 82)“…ty is worthy of protection. In 1985 the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 38-532, which protects state and county employ…”
- Walters v. Maricopa County (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1999, 195 Ariz. 476)“…ieves evidences ... a violation of any law.” Paragraph D of A.R.S. section 38-532 states that “[a]n employee or former em…”
- McDonald v. Campbell (Arizona Supreme Court 1991, 169 Ariz. 478)“…ge was in violation of Arizona's "whistle-blowing" statute, A.R.S. § 38-532. In general terms, the statute, which w…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 41 (State Government), Chapter 9 (CIVIL RIGHTS), Article 4 (Discrimination in Employment)
§ 41-1464Other unlawful employment practices; opposition to unlawful practices; filing of charges; participation in proceedings; notices and advertisements for employmentIn force
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.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Najar v. State (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2000, 198 Ariz. 345)“…against Small, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a) and A.R.S. § 41-1464(A). It did not address Najar’s claim th…”
- Civil Rights Division v. Vernick Plumbing & Heating Co. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1982, 132 Ariz. 84)“…ot adopting one of its proposed findings. We affirm. A.R.S. § 41-1464 makes it an unlawful employment practic…”
- Derek D. Fraser v. State of Arizona (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2025)“…(App. 2000) (allowing plaintiff alleging retaliation under A.R.S. § 41-1464 to demonstrate that “legitimate nonreta…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 23 (Labor), Chapter 2 (EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND WORKING CONDITIONS), Article 6 (Minimum Wages for Minors)
§ 23-329Violations; classificationIn force
A. An employer or his agent, or the officer or agent of a corporation, who knowingly discharges, or in any other manner discriminates against an employee, because the employee has served, or is about to serve, on a wage board, or has testified, or is about to testify before a wage board, or in any other investigation or proceeding under or related to this article, or because the employer believes that the employee may serve on a wage board, or may testify before a wage board or in an investigation or proceeding under this article, or who deducts any part of any wages or compensation, other than as prescribed by law, when due a minor, is guilty of a petty offense. B. An employer or his agent, or the officer or agent of a corporation, who knowingly pays or agrees to pay to a minor employee less than the wage rates applicable to the minor under a mandatory minimum fair wage order is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. C. An employer or his agent, or the officer or agent of a corporation, who fails to keep the records required by this article or to furnish the records to the commission or an authorized representative of the commission upon request is guilty of a petty offense.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501: severability of employment relationships, protection from retaliatory discharge(azleg.gov).gov
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-532: prohibited personnel practice by public employers, reinstatement and civil penalty(azleg.gov).gov
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1464: other unlawful employment practices, opposition protections and filing procedures(azleg.gov).gov
- Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-329: violations and classification in employment practices(azleg.gov).gov