By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court will hear arguments Sept. 1 in Arizona State University (ASU) professor Owen Anderson’s effort to pursue a lawsuit alleging the school’s mandatory employee training violated state law. The law bars public employers from requiring training that assigns blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex.
The justices agreed to review whether the Arizona Court of Appeals should have applied factors established in a 1988 state Supreme Court decision before concluding that the law gives employees no implied private right to sue. The court’s review is limited to that enforcement question.
Anderson’s allegation that ASU violated the law remains unresolved. The Court of Appeals also did not decide whether the training’s contents violated the statute.
As AZ Free News reported in February, Anderson asked the high court to take the case after the Court of Appeals held in December that the statute supplied no private cause of action. His attorneys at the Goldwater Institute argued in their petition that the ruling departed from the method Arizona courts have used to determine whether lawmakers intended an implied remedy.
ASU required employees to complete its “Inclusive Communities” module, one of three employee-training modules described in the Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision. According to Goldwater’s case materials, employees were instructed to repeat the training every two years, and Anderson viewed but did not complete the module or its accompanying quiz. The philosophy professor brought his lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024, alleging that the training presented race- and sex-based concepts prohibited by state law.
The statute bars the state and its political subdivisions from requiring employee training that presents “blame or judgment” based on race, ethnicity, or sex. It also prohibits the use of public money for such training and directs the Arizona Department of Administration to submit an annual compliance report to the governor and legislative leaders. The law exempts sexual harassment training from its restrictions.
“Ultimately, the question now before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue—and it’s not just about DEI—it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law,” Anderson said in a statement released by the Goldwater Institute.
In a statement to AZ Free News, Dr. Anderson added, “This case is now an employment case. ABOR/ASU is arguing a state employee does not have standing to hold them accountable for breaking § 41-1494. That means this is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. It is an employment issue that will affect all state employees going forward.”
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge denied the Board of Regents’ motion to dismiss Anderson’s statutory claim. The judge found that the Legislature had created an implied right for affected public employees to enforce the prohibition, despite the absence of an express authorization to sue. The Board then filed a special-action petition with the Court of Appeals, which accepted jurisdiction and vacated that portion of the trial court’s ruling.
The appellate panel concluded that the statute’s text contains neither an express nor an implied private right of action. It pointed to the statutory compliance reporting system and said a mandamus action could compel officials to submit the required reports. The panel left the superior court free to consider a separate request for equitable or declaratory relief if a proper party raises that issue on remand, according to the December decision
Goldwater’s petition for review argues that the appellate court should have applied the factors set out in Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Court. Those factors include the statute’s context, language, subject matter, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose. Goldwater contends that the law protects an identifiable group of public employees and that the reporting requirement does not give an employee a remedy after an alleged violation.
In its supplemental brief, the Board of Regents argues that the Court of Appeals correctly began with the statutory text. The Board says the provision prohibits specified government conduct without granting individuals a cause of action, and that the Legislature’s inclusion of a reporting system shows the enforcement approach it selected. It also points to express private remedies in surrounding statutes and argues that the Legislature deliberately left them out of § 41-1494.
Goldwater Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches said that lawmakers intended state employees to be able to challenge alleged violations in court.
“There is no doubt that when Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory DEI trainings for state workers, they intended for those workers to have ability to challenge their employers in court,” Riches said. “We’re now asking for the Arizona Supreme Court to correct the lower court’s error and restore Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable when they violate the law.”
The hearing comes as Arizona voters prepare to consider Proposition 142 on the November ballot. The separate proposed constitutional amendment would expand the state’s prohibition on preferential treatment and restrict compelled support for race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment in public education and employment, according to the official ballot language.
The hearing in Arizona Board of Regents v. Anderson is scheduled for 9:30 a.m.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
