On November 2, 2021, voters in Tucson, Arizona, passed Proposition 206 (officially titled the Tucson Minimum Wage Act (TMWA)). This new city ordinance increases the minimum wage for virtually all employees working within the city limits to $13.00 per hour, effective April 1, 2022.
Only one day before Arizona’s “Stay Home, Stay Healthy, Stay Connected” order was set to expire, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued Executive Order (EO) 2020-33. Governor Ducey announced the modified extension of the stay-at-home order at a press conference on the afternoon of April 29, 2020. Consistent with the previous order, Arizonans must continue limiting their time away from their homes, except for participating in “Essential Activities,” employment in “Essential Functions,” and utilizing services or products of “Essential Businesses.”
In our recent article, we explained the COVID-19 epidemic’s potential impact on Arizona employers’ duty to provide paid sick leave to their employees. Significantly, we noted that in the event the governor declared a “public health emergency,” various business and school closures ordered by a “public official” in connection with that declaration could trigger paid sick leave obligations under Arizona’s earned paid sick time law.
Since February 2020, the spread of COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the coronavirus) has morphed into an expanding health emergency in the United States. While efforts to sufficiently stem the adverse effects of the virus to escape the mass disruptions and quarantines experienced in China and other countries are still possible, prudent and responsible Arizona employers may want to prepare in the event the virus dramatically increases its presence here.
In February 2019, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One ruled that the Arizona State Legislature overstepped its authority in 2016, when it prohibited Arizona cities and other municipalities from enacting their own employee benefits ordinances. On August 27, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court denied review of the Court of Appeals decision.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, has ruled that the Arizona State Legislature overstepped its authority in 2016, when it prohibited Arizona cities and other municipalities from enacting their own employee benefits ordinances.
When Arizona’s fifty-third legislature ended last spring, we reported on four new laws that impact Arizona employers and employees. The legislature also passed two additional laws impacting Arizona employers.
On November 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applies to all states and political subdivisions—regardless of their size.
Arizona’s fifty-third legislature ended in early May of 2018 while over 50,000 demonstrators protested for increased education funding at the state capitol. While the #RedForEd movement essentially ground all remaining legislative action for the 2018 session to a halt, the legislature did manage to pass 369 bills this session before its attention turned entirely to education funding. However, only four bills that substantively impact employers made it to the governor’s desk and either received his signature or were allowed to become effective after the veto deadline passed.
On June 30, 2017—the day before Arizona’s new paid sick leave law went into effect—the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued 18 pages of new frequently asked questions (FAQs). Some of the FAQs merely restate the draft regulations, while others provide useful examples helping to give color to draft supplemental regulations recently issued.
On June 27, 2017, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued supplemental draft regulations. The supplemental regulations tweak some of the draft regulations the ICA issued on May 5, 2017. Some supplemental regulations are entirely new and help clarify several important yet unanswered questions lingering in employers’ minds.
Arizona’s new paid sick leave law—Proposition 206 or The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act—will go into effect on July 1, 2017. Since the law passed, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) has crafted proposed regulations and a number of frequently asked questions (FAQs). This three-part blog series examines the intricacies of the ICA’s current proposed regulations and FAQs.
Arizona’s new paid sick leave law—Proposition 206 or The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act—will go into effect on July 1, 2017. While we previously explained key components of the law, the Act left many important questions unanswered. Since the law passed, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) has crafted a limited set of proposed regulations, which remain subject to review and approval by the state attorney general or the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council.
Since passage last November of Proposition 206, Arizona’s new paid sick leave law, officially titled The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act, employers have been scrambling to prepare for its implementation on July 1, 2017.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 5, 2017, containing the ICA’s much-anticipated draft regulations on Arizona’s new paid sick time law, which goes into effect on July 1, 2017.
Last December, I wrote about a lawsuit before the Arizona Supreme Court challenging Proposition 206, the minimum wage and paid sick time referendum that instantly raised the Arizona minimum wage to $10 per hour and created a mandatory paid sick time requirement for employers.
Proposition 206, the minimum wage and paid sick time referendum that decisively passed in last month’s election with over 58 percent of votes cast, may never become effective if a newly filed lawsuit proves successful. In the meantime, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued their initial FAQs in a newly-released document, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Minimum Wage and Earned Paid Sick Time designed to provide guidance for employers and employees on both the new minimum wage and the paid sick time (PST) provisions. While helpful in summarizing and organizing the law’s multiple components, the FAQs break no new ground.
Last month we wrote about the likely passage of Arizona’s Proposition 206, the so-called Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off Initiative, and we touched on some of its key elements. Now that Prop. 206 has passed, we offer the following comprehensive analysis of the Paid Sick Time provision (PST) and primer on what Arizona employers need to know—and do—to get ready before July 1, 2017, when the law takes effect.
On November 8, 2016, Arizona voters will decide on the “Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off Initiative,” known as Proposition 206. The purpose of Prop. 206 is twofold: (1) to increase Arizona’s minimum wage from $8.05 per hour in 2016 to $12.00 per hour by the year 2020 (with a nearly $2.00 per hour boost starting on January 1, 2017), and (2) to require that employers provide paid sick time to employees.
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion overturning the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s denial of unemployment benefits to an employee who was terminated for excessive tardiness. Importantly, the court ruled in favor of the employee because it found that the employer failed to prove that the employee’s tardiness constituted “willful or negligent misconduct,” as required under Arizona law.
On July 9, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an employer-friendly opinion holding that an employer was not vicariously liable for negligent conduct committed by an employee during an out-of-town assignment, after work hours.
On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, ruled that several significant provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, often referred to as S.B. 1070, are preempted by federal law. The Court also ruled that it was improper to enjoin another provision of the law. Of particular significance to
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued two decisions that impact employers. In the first case, the justices held that federal immigration law does not preempt or invalidate an Arizona law that subjected employers to sanctions for knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized aliens. In the second case, the high court ruled that plan participants seeking relief from violations of the notice and disclosure provisions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) must show “actual” rather than “likely” harm.
On May 26, 2011, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the 5-3 majority, in part joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that federal immigration law does not preempt or invalidate an Arizona law, which subjected state employers to sanctions for knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized aliens and which required that all Arizona employers use E-Verify. According to the high court, in enacting its law, “Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law.”
