Total Articles: 29
Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Legal Workers Act
On May 26, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-3 decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting upholding the Arizona Legal Workers Act (“the Act”). The Act provides that the business licenses of employers who knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use E-Verify. The Court held that neither of these provisions was preempted by federal immigration law.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arizona's E-Verify Law and Penalty Provisions for Employing Unauthorized Workers
On May 26, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Arizona's 2007 immigration law that requires all employers to use E-Verify for all new hires and permits the revocation of a company's business license as a penalty for employing unauthorized workers. This decision resulted from a challenge to the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, not to be confused with the 2010 controversial Arizona "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."
Supreme Court Rules Arizona's Immigration Law Is Not In Conflict With Federal Law
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." "If even this gives rise to impermissible conflicts with federal law," the Court noted, "then there really is no way for the State to implement licensing sanctions, contrary to the express terms of the savings clause." Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Whiting, No. 09-115, U.S. Supreme Court (May 26, 2011).
Arizona Immigration Law Valid According to Divided Supreme Court
To the political bonfire of illegal immigration, the U.S. Supreme Court has just dumped several gallons of petrol, with its decision upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which places penalties for hiring illegal workers on most Arizona employers and requires that employers use E-verify.
State E-Verify Requirements Upheld by Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court has upheld Arizona's requirement for all employers in the state to use E-Verify on penalty of losing their business licenses. More states might follow Arizona.
New Legislation Defines “Impairment” And Addresses Other Employer Concerns Created By The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
House Bill 2541, which was recently passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 29, 2011, amends Arizona’s drug testing statute by defining terms and adding much-needed protections for employers in light of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. The Act, passed by Arizona voters last November, includes a specific employment-based anti-discrimination section that protects medical marijuana “cardholders.” Employers are prohibited from taking adverse actions, such as termination, based on an employee’s or applicant’s status as a cardholder, or a qualifying patient’s positive drug test, unless the qualifying patient (i.e., a cardholder authorized to use medical marijuana) used, possessed or was “impaired” by marijuana while at work or during work hours. The Act’s failure to define “impaired” left employers questioning how to determine whether an employee is impaired without running afoul of the anti-discrimination language, and when employers could lawfully take any action against a cardholder.
Arizona's New Legislative Prescription For Employer Medical Marijuana Ailments
Employers in Arizona exhaled a sigh of relief as Governor Jan Brewer signed a new law Friday, April 29, 2011. Among other things, the new law protects employers who take action against employees suspected of working while impaired by marijuana or other prohibited substances.
Arizona Employers Must be Ready for New Medical Marijuana Use Law.
Almost two weeks after the polls closed, Arizona became the 15th state in the nation to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Proposition 203, or the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, appeared unlikely to pass early on election night. However, after the early voter and provisional ballots were finally counted, the tally put the yes votes ahead by a mere 4,341 votes out of the nearly 1.7 million cast.
Up In Smoke: Arizona's Medical Marijuana Law Creates New Workplace Protected Class
In the final vote tally completed nearly two weeks after the close of the election polls, Arizona's medical marijuana law passed by a margin of just over 4,000 votes. Like prior attempts to legalize medical marijuana in Arizona, Proposition 203 legalizes marijuana use by authorized patients for limited medical purposes under state law. But unlike the prior versions which passed in 1996 and 1998 and which were effectively nullified, Proposition 203 seems more likely to survive technical wording challenges. Arizona joins 14 other states that have adopted similar medical marijuana laws.
The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act Implications for Employers.
After a close vote, Arizona voters recently passed Proposition 203, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, making Arizona the 15th state to pass legislation legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Arizona Medical Marijuana Law
So, there was a big debate over what would happen in the workplace if California's Prop. 19 were to pass. If you have a short memory, that was the initiative to basically legalize personal use of marijuana. Well, that initiative failed to pass back on November 2.
Arizona Voters Pass Medical Marijuana Proposition
By a margin of just 4,341 votes, Arizona voters decided to make their state the fifteenth to allow the use of medical marijuana. The Yes vote on Proposition 203 had trailed for nearly a week following Election Day, but made a surprising comeback as absentee and provisional ballots were counted. The measure was opposed by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules That Metadata Is Not Subject to Public Records Request.
In a 2-1 decision issued just this week, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals found that metadata associated with electronic documents was not subject to a public records request under Arizona's public records law.
State Law AlertCertain Employers Must Use E-Verify (pdf).
All employers doing business in Arizona are required to register for E-Verify and run all new Arizona
employees through the E-Verify system.
Court Upholds Tough Arizona Immigration Law.
The Ninth Circuit recently upheld a tough Arizona immigration law, known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), which targets employers who hire unauthorized workers. This is the first federal appeals court to rule on a challenge to a state immigration law.
Ninth Circuit Upholds Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday issued a ruling upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). LAWA provides for the suspension and revocation of the business licenses of Arizona employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. LAWA also requires employers to verify the work status of newly-hired workers through the federal E-Verify employment verification program. Last year, various business and civic associations and non-profit corporations filed two lawsuits challenging LAWA on the ground that the Act infringes on federal immigration powers. They also claimed that LAWA lacks adequate due process protection for Arizona employers.
Arizonas E-Verify Law Upheld.
On September 17, a federal appellate court upheld Arizonas law requiring all employers to participate in E-Verify. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) was not preempted by federal immigration law and that the Act does not, on its face, deprive employers of due process since there is an opportunity for employers to be heard before sanctions are imposed.
Ninth Circuit Upholds Legal Arizona Workers Act
On September 17, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the controversial Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). Under the LAWA, which took effect January 1, 2008, a business found guilty of "knowingly" or "intentionally" hiring undocumented workers faces suspension or revocation of its business license and is placed on probationary status for a period of time. LAWA also requires employers to use the controversial federal E-Verify system to check the work-authorization status of employees.
Legal Alert: Arizona Immigration Law May Soon be Tested.
Arizona is one of a number of states that has recently enacted laws imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. Although the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) took effect on January 1, 2008, as of yet, no employers have been prosecuted under the law. This may soon change as the result of a recent raid on two Arizona water parks, which resulted in the arrest of nine workers suspected of being illegal immigrants.
Arizona Governor Signs Law Amending Employer Immigration Sanctions Law.
On May 1, 2008, Arizona Governor Napolitano signed into law an amendment of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). Under the LAWA, which took effect January 1, 2008, a business found guilty of knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented workers faces suspension or revocation of its business license and is placed on probationary status for a period of time.
Governor Signs Bill Amending Legal Arizona Workers Act.
On Thursday, May 1st, Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law HB 2745, a bill that significantly modifies portions of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), the Arizona law that prohibits employers from hiring workers not legally authorized to work in the United States. Although LAWA has been in effect for less than five months, throughout its brief history, numerous business, Hispanic, and civil rights organizations have vigorously fought to strike it down. So far, those efforts have been unsuccessful.
Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law Upheld.
U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake dismissed a lawsuit brought by various business and civic groups challenging the Arizona Legal Workers Act (the "Act"). The Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2008, gives Arizona Superior Courts the power to suspend or revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized workers. In his 37-page decision dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Wake said that the Act does not violate employers due process rights or improperly infringe on the federal governments authority to regulate illegal immigration. Judge Wake said that federal immigration law specifically allows states to regulate business licensing.
Enforcement of Arizona Legal Workers Act Postponed.
Enforcement actions under the new Arizona Legal Workers Act have been put on hold until March 1, 2008. During a hearing in front of U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake on Wednesday, January 16, 2008, Arizonas 15 county attorneys agreed to wait until the end of February before prosecuting any complaints filed under the new law. There are no guarantees, however, that law enforcement agencies will refrain from investigating complaints that employers have hired unauthorized workers.
Arizona Legal Workers Act Survives First Challenge.
Just hours ago, Judge Neil Wake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied a temporary restraining order seeking to block enforcement of the Arizona Legal Workers Act. For now, it appears that Arizonas sweeping new law aimed at stopping the employment of unauthorized workers in Arizona will take effect as scheduled on January 1, 2008. The Act, which allows for suspension and revocation of licenses of businesses that knowingly employ unauthorized workers, has been discussed in detail in prior Ogletree Deakins client alerts.
Arizona Alert - Judge Rejects Challenge To Legal Arizona Workers Act.
On Friday, December 7, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake dismissed the consolidated lawsuit brought by various business and civic associations and non-profit corporations challenging the "Legal Arizona Workers Act," Arizonas new employer sanctions/immigration law. In his ruling, Judge Wake said that the plaintiffs who challenged the new law had sued the wrong parties. Rather than sue the 15 County Attorneys -- who are charged with enforcing the new law -- the plaintiffs brought their lawsuit against the Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. In his 25-page decision, Judge Wake wrote: "This action must be dismissed without prejudice...there being no justiciable case or controversy against the defendants."
Proposed Arizona Law Would Impose Stiff Penalties for Employing Undocumented .
On June 20, 2007, the Arizona legislature approved legislation that would provide for a stiff set of penalties to businesses that employ undocumented workers. Specifically, Arizona House Bill 2779 would prohibit employers from knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented workers.
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Public Records Law.
Like many states, Arizona has an open records law that mandates that all public records be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours. Yesterday, the Arizona Supreme Court held that not all e-mails created or maintained on a public agencys computer are necessarily public records.
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Notice of Claim Statute.
In a significant victory for public employers in Arizona, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that the states notice of claim statute requires a claimant to provide a particular and certain amount of money required to settle a claim and that communications containing qualifying language do not meet this requirement.
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Notice of Claim Statute.
In a significant victory for public employers in Arizona, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that the states notice of claim statute requires a claimant to provide a particular and certain amount of money required to settle a claim and that communications containing qualifying language do not meet this requirement.
