Attorney General Mayes' Civil Rights Division Recovers Over $2 Million for Discrimination Victims in Fiscal Year 2025

PHOENIX — Attorney General Kris Mayes today announced that the Arizona Attorney General's Office Civil Rights Division recovered over $2 million in monetary relief for victims of discrimination in fiscal year 2025, resolving 128 cases through litigation and alternative dispute resolution.

In FY 2025, the Civil Rights Division investigated 3,017 allegations of discrimination and completed over 800 investigations — each involving one or several allegations requiring individual examination. The vast majority of cases were resolved without filing a lawsuit, sparing victims, respondents, and the State the cost and burden of litigation.

All monetary relief recovered by the Civil Rights Division went directly to victims of discrimination. Civil money penalties were deposited into the State General Fund. Beyond financial remedies, many victims received non-monetary relief, including the creation of accessible parking spaces and other reasonable accommodations ensuring equal access for people with disabilities.

"Every one of these cases represents a real Arizonan who faced discrimination in their job, their home, or their community," said Attorney General Mayes. "My office’s Civil Rights Division fights to make sure Arizona's promise of equal treatment isn't just words — it's a guarantee we enforce under the law."

Arizona's civil rights laws protect residents from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and voting based on religion, race, national origin, sex, color, familial status, or age. The Civil Rights Division's services are free to the public regardless of income.

Over the past eight years, the Division has investigated more than 21,000 allegations of discrimination and recovered nearly $12 million in monetary remedies for victims — the majority through mediation and settlement.

In addition to case resolutions, the Division facilitated 21 education, outreach, and training events in FY 2025 to inform communities about Arizona's civil rights laws and available resources.

Civil Rights Division Case Highlights:

State v. Turner Mining: In this employment discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant violated the ACRA when it allegedly failed to take effective remedial action in response to threatening, unwelcomed, and offensive sex-based conduct and comments by two of its employees. The Civil Rights Division also alleged that Defendant subjected its employee to retaliation in violation of the ACRA when she was terminated after engaging in protected activity. This case was resolved in FY 2025 through Consent Decree.

State v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. et al.: In this public accommodations discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendants violated the Arizonans with Disabilities Act (“AzDA”) section of the ACRA. Specifically, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendants discriminated against their client, who is hard of hearing, by failing to provide her with effective communication during inpatient residential treatment at Defendants’ facility, isolating her, and failing to adequately treat her throughout her month-long residency. The Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendants’ denied her an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from Defendants’ services due to her disability. This case was resolved in FY 2025 through Consent Decree.

State v. Precision Tool: In this employment discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant subjected its employee to sex-based discrimination when it suspended her after she disclosed her pregnancy. This case was resolved in FY 2025 through Consent Decree.

State v. Shirley Ann Enterprises: In this housing discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant violated the Arizona Fair Housing Act ("AFHA") section of the ACRA when it discriminated against its tenant because of her disability-related need for an emotional support animal and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity under the AFHA. This case was resolved in FY 2025 through Consent Decree.

State v. School District No. 24 of Maricopa County: In this employment discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant subjected its employee to disability-based harassment and discrimination. This case was resolved in FY 2025 through Consent Decree.

State v. Olive Branch Assisted Living, LLC et al.: In this housing discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendants violated the AFHA when they subjected a client to disparate treatment and denied her housing due to her disability and engaged in coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with her fair housing rights. This case is currently pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

State v. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers d/b/a Fry’s Food Stores: In this employment discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant violated the ACRA when it failed to reasonably accommodate its employee’s disability and therefore discriminated against him. This case involves an individual who is Deaf and required use of an American Sign Language interpreter for effective communication. This case is currently pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

State v. Gary M. Gitlin, PLC: In this employment discrimination case against an entity with under 15 employees the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant violated the ACRA when its owner engaged in sex discrimination involving quid pro quo sexual harassment of an employee. The Civil Rights Division further alleged that Defendant unlawfully retaliated against the employee after she engaged in protected activity under the ACRA. This case is currently pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

State v. Cox Communications Arizona, LLC: In this employment discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant subjected its employee to disability-based discrimination, including a failure to make reasonable accommodations to her known disability, and terminated her employment because of her disability, in violation of the ACRA. This case was resolved through Consent Decree.

State v. Highmark Residential LLC et al.: In this housing discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendants discriminated against a family by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation necessary for the son’s disability and engaged in threats and interference with the family’s fair housing rights under the AFHA. This case was resolved through Consent Decree.

State v. Frame Properties Ltd. Partnership: In this housing discrimination case, the Civil Rights Division alleged that Defendant discriminated against a tenant by failing to reasonably accommodate her disability by refusing to adjust her rental due date because of delays in receipt of SSDI payments. In FY 2025, this case was still pending in Maricopa County Superior Court, but has since been resolved through Consent Decree.