Arizona Supreme Court: Considers A.R.S. 41-1494 Private Right of Action

• ASU Professor Owen Anderson is challenging the university's mandatory DEI training in the Arizona Supreme Court, alleging it violates A.R.S. § 41-1494.
• The Arizona law prohibits state agencies from requiring training that assigns blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex.
• A lower court ruled Anderson lacked standing because the statute does not explicitly grant a private right of action, leaving enforcement to regulatory bodies or the state attorney general.
• Anderson's attorney argues for an implied private right of action, citing a conflict of interest with the Arizona Board of Regents as both regulator and defendant.
• The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether individuals can directly sue state agencies over alleged violations of the Arizona state agency DEI training law.

The Arizona Supreme Court's impending decision on whether A.R.S. 41-1494 private right of action Arizona exists will have significant ramifications for state agencies and public universities across the state.

A philosophy and religious studies professor at Arizona State University, Owen Anderson, has escalated his challenge against the institution's mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training to the Arizona Supreme Court. Represented by the conservative think tank Goldwater Institute, Anderson initiated his Owen Anderson DEI lawsuit Arizona in 2024, following his refusal to participate in ASU's "Inclusive Communities" training in previous years. He contends that the training violates A.R.S. § 41-1494, an Arizona state agency DEI training law that prohibits state agencies, including universities, from mandating employee training that assigns blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex.

Anderson asserts that specific elements of the training, such as discussions on "acknowledging the history of white supremacy" and the concept of "how perceptions of authority and control are not granted to minoritized faculty," caused him significant distress. He reported feeling personally responsible for actions attributed to members of his demographic group and experienced psychological discomfort due to his own characteristics. The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), which governs ASU and sets the Arizona Board of Regents DEI policy, maintains that its training fully complies with the statute, arguing that its message is the antithesis of blaming or judging individuals for their identity or beliefs.

The crux of the legal dispute centers on whether individuals, like Professor Anderson, possess the legal standing to sue under A.R.S. § 41-1494. A lower court ruled in December that Anderson lacked such standing because the statute does not explicitly grant a private right of action, meaning enforcement was deemed to be exclusively within the purview of regulatory bodies or the state attorney general. Anderson's attorney, Jon Riches, argued before the Arizona Supreme Court that an implied private right of action Arizona must exist, especially given the unique circumstances where the Arizona Board of Regents, the regulatory body, is also the defendant in the case. Riches likened this situation to allowing "the fox to guard the henhouse," suggesting a fundamental conflict of interest.

During the proceedings, Riches contended that the law's requirement for agencies to submit annual compliance reports to their regulatory bodies does not constitute a sufficient remedy for individuals whose rights are allegedly violated. He emphasized that a report offers no relief to affected employees. Vice Chief Justice John R. Lopez questioned whether establishing an additional remedy would overstep the Legislature's authority. In response, Riches asserted that denying an implied private right of action would, in fact, create a separation of powers issue, arguing that once the Legislature defines state policy, the judiciary's role is to provide remedial relief. Conversely, state attorney Thomas Ryerson, representing ABOR, argued that the statute, which also restricts the use of state funds for such ideas, contains no "textual indicia"—such as provisions for attorney fees or statutes of limitations—that would suggest an individual's right to sue. Ryerson pointed out that other statutes addressing similar subject matter, enacted around the same time, do include such explicit indicators.

The Arizona Supreme Court's impending decision on whether A.R.S. 41-1494 private right of action Arizona exists will have significant ramifications for state agencies and public universities across the state. A ruling in favor of Professor Anderson could establish a precedent allowing individual employees to directly challenge DEI training policies they believe violate the statute, potentially exposing agencies to a new avenue of litigation. This would broaden the scope of individual employee challenges to DEI training policies, moving enforcement beyond just regulatory oversight.

Conversely, if the court upholds the lower court's finding that no implied private right of action exists, it would reinforce the current enforcement mechanism, leaving individuals to rely on regulatory bodies or the state attorney general to address alleged violations. This case highlights a critical debate over judicial interpretation of legislative intent and the balance of power between branches of government, particularly concerning the Arizona Supreme Court standing to sue in cases where statutory language is not explicit about individual enforcement rights.

Lawyers advising Arizona state agencies or public universities should monitor this case closely as the Arizona Supreme Court's decision on an implied private right of action under A.R.S. § 41-1494 will determine the scope of individual employee challenges to DEI training policies. A ruling for the professor could expose agencies to direct lawsuits from employees, necessitating a review of current DEI programs for compliance risk.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News