Chandler K. Smith Associate

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona recently evaluated the reasonableness of two restrictive covenants—the nonsolicitation of customers and the nonsolicitation of employees—along with claims related to violation of the company’s confidential information policy.

Recently, in Matthews v. City of Tempe, 2023 WL 6880652, the Arizona Federal District Court considered whether an employer discriminated against a former employee when it denied him an opportunity to telecommute on certain days but allowed female employees to take advantage of remote work.

In a recent decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals considered the claim that an employee was discharged for disclosing allegedly unsafe conditions in violation of the Arizona Employment Protection Act. The court considered whether each disclosure by the employee qualified as protected activity and concluded that the reported violation of the Arizona Administrative Code could constitute protected activity, while the others, including a reported violation of state regulations of the National Electric Safety Code, were not protected activity.