Case: State of Arizona v. City of Tucson

CV2022-011416 | Arizona state trial court

Filed Date: Aug. 30, 2022

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a lawsuit filed by the Arizona Attorney General’s office against the City of Tucson, alleging discrimination regarding the city’s mandatory vaccination requirement and related conduct. In August 2021, the City of Tucson issued a directive mandating that all of Tucson’s over 4,000 employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination or submit a request for a religious accommodation or medical exemption. On August 30, 2022, the Arizona Attorney General and the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Department of Law, on behalf of the state of Arizona (collectively, “the State”), filed this lawsuit in the Maricopa County Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-1481(D), alleging that the mandatory vaccination requirement violated state law by discriminating against employees based on religion and/or disability. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction prohibiting Tucson from engaging in any unlawful employment practice and retaliation; back pay and front pay and pre- and post-judgment interest for employees with disabilities and/or sincerely-held religious beliefs; an order requiring Tucson to eradicate the effects of its present unlawful employment practices; an order requiring Tucson to issue a public apology; an order authorizing the State to monitor Tucson’s compliance with the Arizona Civil Rights Act; and the taxable costs the State incurred in bringing this action. The case was assigned to Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill.

According to the complaint, in June 2021, Arizona Governor Ducey signed SB1824 into law, prohibiting government entities from requiring “any person to be vaccinated for COVID-19.” The bill was to become effective on September 29, 2021. Meanwhile, in August 2021, the City of Tucson issued the directive at issue here, which required all city employees to submit proof of COVID-19 vaccination as an employment condition unless they requested an accommodation or medical exemption that was approved. The directive went into effect on August 20, 2021. It gave employees three business days to submit requests for religious accommodation, disability-based accommodation, and/or medical exemption.This directive’s deadline was later amended, giving employees until November 23, 2021. Employees who failed to comply with the directive were subject to disciplinary action.. Those employees who could not comply with the initial directive, however, were subject to disciplinary action.

On February 13, 2023, a motion to consolidate was filed, and this court granted the motion to consolidate on March 3, 2023. On March 9, 2023, the court issued an order granting the reassignment of the judge pro tempore and extending the deadline for the settlement conference. On March 27, 2023, the court issued an order with a notice of settlement conference. There was a civil settlement conference on April 10, 2023 and May 2, 2023. On August 31, 2023, there was a stipulation for an entry of consent decree. The court ordered a consent decree on September 12, 2023.

As of October 4, 2024, the Clearinghouse does not know any additional details about the case consolidation of this case or the contents of the consent decree.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Nicole Brigstock (10/25/2024)