Back to Arizona

HB2253 • 2026

testimony; disciplinary action; prohibition

HB2253 - testimony; disciplinary action; prohibition

Labor
Passed Legislature

This bill passed both chambers and reached final enrollment, even if later executive action is not shown here.

Sponsor
Jeff Weninger
Last action
2026-03-24
Official status
Senate minority caucus
Effective date
Not listed

Plain English Breakdown

The official source material does not specify how the bill will be enforced or what consequences there are for violations, leaving these points uncertain.

Protection for Employees Testifying in Disciplinary Appeals

HB2253 prevents employers or agencies from stopping employees from testifying in appeals about disciplinary actions and stops them from punishing employees who do testify.

What This Bill Does

  • Stops an agency, employer, or political subdivision of the state from prohibiting or obstructing an employee's testimony in a proceeding related to the appeal of a disciplinary action.
  • Includes an employee designated as a subject matter expert as protected by this prohibition.
  • Prohibits employers, agencies, and political subdivisions from taking retaliatory actions against employees for providing testimony about whether evidence should be disclosed in the appeal process.

Who It Names or Affects

  • Employees who are involved in disciplinary action appeals as witnesses or subject matter experts.
  • Employers and agencies that may discipline employees for testifying in such proceedings.

Terms To Know

disciplinary action
A punishment given to an employee, like dismissal, demotion, or suspension, due to misconduct or poor performance.
retaliatory action
An act taken against someone in response to their actions, such as punishing them for speaking up.

Limits and Unknowns

  • The bill does not specify the consequences if an employer violates these rules.
  • It is unclear how this legislation will be enforced or monitored by the state.

Amendments

These notes stay tied to the official amendment files and metadata from the legislature.

Plain English: Fifty-seventh Legislature Public Safety & Law Enforcement Second Regular Session H.B.

  • Fifty-seventh Legislature Public Safety & Law Enforcement Second Regular Session H.B.
  • 2253 PROPOSED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B.
  • 2253 (Reference to printed bill) The bill as proposed to be amended is reprinted as follows: 1 Section 1.
  • Section 38-1106, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to 2 read: 3 38-1106.
  • This amendment summary is using official source text because generated interpretation was skipped for this run.

Bill History

  1. 2026-03-24 Senate

    Senate minority caucus

  2. 2026-03-24 Senate

    Senate majority caucus

  3. 2026-03-23 Senate

    Senate consent calendar

  4. 2026-03-09 Senate

    Senate second read

  5. 2026-03-05 Senate

    Senate Rules: PFC

  6. 2026-03-05 Senate

    Senate Public Safety: DP

  7. 2026-03-05 Senate

    Senate first read

  8. 2026-02-26 Senate

    Transmitted to Senate

  9. 2026-02-26 House

    House third read passed

  10. 2026-02-25 House

    House committee of the whole

  11. 2026-02-24 House

    House minority caucus

  12. 2026-02-24 House

    House majority caucus

  13. 2026-01-20 House

    House second read

  14. 2026-01-15 House

    House Rules: C&P

  15. 2026-01-15 House

    House Public Safety & Law Enforcement: DPA

  16. 2026-01-15 House

    House first read

Official Summary Text

HB2253 - 572R - Senate Fact Sheet

Assigned to
PS����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� FOR
COMMITTEE

ARIZONA STATE SENATE

Fifty-Seventh
Legislature, Second Regular Session

FACT SHEET FOR
H.B. 2253

testimony;
disciplinary action; prohibition

Purpose

����������� Preempts
an agency, employer or political subdivision of the state from prohibiting or
obstructing and from taking any retaliatory action against an employee for
testifying in a proceeding relating to the appeal of a disciplinary action.

Background

����������� In
any appeal of a disciplinary action of a law enforcement officer, the employer
or law enforcement officer may seek a determination by the hearing officer,
administrative law judge or appeals board hearing the appeal, regarding any
evidence that the employer or officer believes should not be disclosed because
the risk of harm involved in disclosure outweighs any usefulness of the
disclosure in the hearing. A
disciplinary action
is the dismissal, the
demotion or any suspension of a law enforcement officer that is a result of
misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. An employer is prohibited from
disciplining, retaliating against or threatening to retaliate against any
witness for agreeing to be interviewed or for testifying or providing evidence
in an appeal (
A.R.S.
�
�
38-1101

and
38-1106
).

�����������
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state
General Fund associated with this legislation.

Provisions

1.

Preempts
an agency, an employer or a political subdivision of the state from prohibiting
or obstructing an employee from providing testimony in an administrative or
judicial proceeding relating to the appeal of a disciplinary action.

2.

Includes
an employee designated as a subject matter expert as an employee protected by
the preemption.

3.

Prohibits an agency,

an employer or a political subdivision
of
the state from taking any retaliatory action against an
employee for providing testimony in any proceeding to determine
whether
evidence
should be disclosed.

4.

Makes technical and conforming changes.

5.

Becomes effective on the general
effective date.

House Action

PSLE�������������� 2/16/26����� DPA���� 10-0-0-5

3
rd

Read��������� 2/26/26������������������� 53-0-7

Prepared by
Senate Research

March 16, 2026

KJA/KM/hk

Current Bill Text

Read the full stored bill text
HB2253 - 572R - H Ver

House Engrossed

testimony;
disciplinary action; prohibition

State of Arizona

House of Representatives

Fifty-seventh Legislature

Second Regular Session

2026

HOUSE BILL 2253

AN
ACT

Amending section 38-1106, Arizona
Revised Statutes; relating to law enforcement officers.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Be it
enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 38-1106, Arizona Revised
Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE
38-1106.

Appeal of
disciplinary actions; transcripts; change of hearing officer or administrative
law judge; burden of proof; final disposition report; exception

A. In any appeal of a disciplinary action by a law
enforcement officer, the parties shall cooperate with each other, act in good
faith and exchange copies of all relevant documents and a list of all witnesses
pursuant to the following time periods and requirements:

1. Within fourteen calendar days after the
employer's receipt of a written request from the law enforcement officer for a
copy of the investigative file that is accompanied by a copy of the filed
notice of appeal, the employer shall provide a complete copy of the
investigative file as well as the names and contact information for all persons
interviewed during the course of the investigation.

2. Not later than fourteen calendar days before the
appeal hearing, the parties shall produce and serve on every party the
following information:

(a) The name of each witness whom the disclosing
party expects to call at the appeal hearing, with a designation of the subject
matter on which each witness might be called to testify.� A witness may decline
an interview.� The parties shall not interfere with any decision of a witness
regarding whether to be interviewed. An employer shall not
discipline, retaliate against or threaten to retaliate against any witness for
agreeing to be interviewed or for testifying or providing evidence in the
appeal.

(b) The name and contact information of each person
who has given statements, whether written or recorded or signed or unsigned,
regarding matters relevant to the notice of discipline and the custodian of the
copies of those statements.

(c) Copies of any documents that may be introduced
at the hearing and that have not previously been disclosed.

3. The duty to disclose information continues to
exist throughout the process and up to the end of the appeal process.

B. It is unlawful for a person to disseminate
information that is disclosed pursuant to subsection A of this section to any
person other than the parties to the appeal and their lawful representatives
for purposes of the appeal of the disciplinary action.� This subsection does
not prohibit the use of the information in the hearing or disclosure pursuant
to title 39, chapter 1, article 2.

C. If a transcript is required in an administrative
hearing, the employer shall obtain the transcript and provide a copy to the law
enforcement officer within ten calendar days after the employer's receipt of
the transcript.

D. Failure to comply with the requirements of
subsection A or B of this section shall result in the exclusion of the witness,
evidence or testimony, unless the failure to comply is because of excusable
neglect.

E. The employer or the law enforcement officer may
seek a determination by the hearing officer, administrative law judge or
appeals board hearing the appeal regarding any evidence that the employer or
the law enforcement officer believes should not be disclosed pursuant to
subsection A of this section because the risk of harm involved in disclosure
outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure in the hearing.� In determining
whether evidence will be disclosed, the hearing officer, administrative law
judge or appeals board may perform an in camera review of the evidence and may
disclose the material subject to any restriction on the disclosure, including
the closing of the hearing or the sealing of the records, that the hearing
officer, administrative law judge or appeals board finds necessary under the
circumstances.�
An agency, an employer or a political
subdivision in this state may not take any retaliatory action against an
employee for providing testimony in any proceeding pursuant to this subsection.

F. In any appeal of a disciplinary action by a law
enforcement officer in which a single hearing officer or administrative law
judge has been appointed to conduct the appeal hearing, the law enforcement
officer or the employer, within ten calendar days after the appointment of the
hearing officer or administrative law judge, may request a change of hearing
officer or administrative law judge. In cases before the office of
administrative hearings or if the employer is a county, city or town, on the
first request of a party, the request shall be granted.� A city or town with a
population of less than sixty-five thousand persons or a county with a
population of less than two hundred fifty thousand persons must provide, if
necessary to comply with this subsection, for an alternate hearing officer by
means of an interagency agreement with another city, town or
county. If the law enforcement officer is the party who requested
the alternate hearing officer, the law enforcement officer shall reimburse the
city, town or county for one-half of any additional expenses incurred by
the city, town or county in procuring the alternate hearing officer under the
interagency agreement. If an alternate hearing officer is requested
by means of an interagency agreement, the hearing officer shall provide to the
law enforcement officer or employer the option of continuing the hearing for an
additional ten calendar days. Any subsequent requests may be granted
only on a showing that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be obtained due to
the prejudice of the assigned hearing officer or administrative law
judge. The supervisor or supervising body of the hearing officer or
administrative law judge shall decide whether a showing of prejudice has been
made.

G. The employer has the burden of proof in an appeal
of a disciplinary action by a law enforcement officer.

H. The hearing officer, administrative law judge or
appeals board may take into consideration violations of this article as
mitigation in determining discipline.

I. Except where a statute, rule or ordinance makes
the administrative evidentiary hearing the final administrative determination
and after a hearing where the law enforcement officer and the employer have
been equally allowed to call and examine witnesses, cross-examine witnesses,
provide documentary evidence and otherwise fully participate in the hearing, an
employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer may amend, modify, reject
or reverse the portion of a decision made by a hearing officer, administrative
law judge or appeals board that was arbitrary or without reasonable
justification. The employer or person acting on behalf of the
employer shall state the reason for the amendment, modification, rejection or
reversal.

J. Notwithstanding chapter 3, article 3.1 of this
title, all hearings pursuant to this section
shall be

are
open to the public.� Executive sessions allowed pursuant to
section 38-431.03 shall be limited to legal advice to a personnel appeals
board or for deliberations.

K. A law enforcement officer who prevails in an
appeal where a termination has been reversed shall be awarded retroactive
compensation from the date of the officer's separation to the date of
reinstatement.� The hearing officer, administrative law judge or appeals board
hearing the appeal shall determine the amount of retroactive compensation
awarded and any reduction to that amount. Retroactive compensation
may be reduced:

1. If there is undue
delay in setting a hearing date caused by the law enforcement officer or the
law enforcement officer's representative.

2. If the law
enforcement officer requests a continuance.

3. If there exists a
period between separation and reinstatement that the law enforcement officer
would have been unable to perform the duties of a law enforcement officer.

4. By any amount earned by the law enforcement
officer in alternative employment.

5. If the hearing officer, administrative law judge
or appeals board finds that the law enforcement officer's action or misconduct
warrants suspension or demotion.

L. The hearing officer, administrative law judge or
appeals board shall state in every finding of disciplinary action whether or
not just cause existed for the disciplinary action.

M. The hearing officer, administrative law judge or
appeals board shall document in the record those circumstances where the
hearing officer, administrative law judge or appeals board determines that a
party has clearly violated a party's obligation under this section.

N. Immediately after a law enforcement officer
receives the final disposition of an appeal of a disciplinary action, the
administrative law judge, hearing officer or presiding authority shall provide
a final disposition report that includes the final decision and any amended
findings of fact to the law enforcement agency that initiated or imposed the
discipline.

O. A law enforcement agency that receives a final
disposition report shall include the final disposition report in the agency's
original investigation record. If the law enforcement agency
provided a prosecuting agency with information that was obtained during the
investigation of the law enforcement officer for the prosecuting agency's rule
15.1 database
as defined in section 38-1119
, the law
enforcement agency shall forward the final disposition report to the
prosecuting agency.

P.
An agency,
an employer or a political subdivision
of this state
may not prohibit or obstruct an employee, including an employee designated as a
subject matter expert, from providing testimony
to an
administrative or judicial proceeding relating to the appeal of a disciplinary
action pursuant to this section.

P.

Q.
This
section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is employed by an
agency of this state as an at will employee.
END_STATUTE