Google Answers Logo
View Question
Q: QUI TAM statute in Arizona ( Answered,   1 Comment )
Subject: QUI TAM statute in Arizona
Category: Relationships and Society > Law
Asked by: tucsonchilango-ga
List Price: $15.00
Posted: 21 Jul 2005 16:51 PDT
Expires: 20 Aug 2005 16:51 PDT
Question ID: 546422
Is there a QUI TAM statute in Arizona?  If so, does it apply to
independent contractors?

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 21 Jul 2005 17:47 PDT
I checked Arizona state law at:

and there is no reference in the law to the phrase qui tam.

I also ran a Google search on [ qui tam az ] and, although numerous
qui tam cases turned up involving entities in Arizona, they all seemed
to be in regard to federal law, rather than any state statutes.

Qui tam is generally a federal matter, and almost always refers to
whistleblowers in the context of defrauding the government.  I have
never heard of a whistleblower statute that pertains to contractors
involved in non-government work.

Does this information help at all?  If so, please let me know what
additional information you need to make for a complete answer to your

All the best,


Clarification of Question by tucsonchilango-ga on 22 Jul 2005 08:34 PDT
Thanks pafalafa.  I suspect there is some sort of similar statute in
Arizona, but it might not be called a "qui tam" statute.  I am pretty
sure other states have statutes similar to the federal qui tam
statute, but am not positive there is one in Arizona.  The statutes
generally have two components:  a percentage compensation for the
whistleblower when the government recovers lost money, and protection
for the whistleblower from criminal prosecution.  I am most interested
in whether a whistleblower gets protection from criminal prosecution.

When I say independent contractor I mean someone who is independent
but who is working on behalf of the government....I should've made
that more clear in the original question.

If you can find a statute that is basically similar to the federal QUI
TAM, that would be most helpful.  Again, it might not use that

Thanks again, pafalafa.

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 22 Jul 2005 09:48 PDT
Closest I can get you is the anti-retaliation language of AZ labor law:

3. An employee has a claim against an employer for termination of
employment only if one or more of the following circumstances have

(c) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an
employee in retaliation for any of the following:

(i) The refusal by the employee to commit an act or omission that
would violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this

(ii) The disclosure by the employee in a reasonable manner that the
employee has information or a reasonable belief that the employer, or
an employee of the employer, has violated, is violating or will
violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this state to
either the employer or a representative of the employer who the
employee reasonably believes is in a managerial or supervisory
position and has the authority to investigate the information provided
by the employee and to take action to prevent further violations of
the Constitution of Arizona or statutes of this state or an employee
of a public body or political subdivision of this state or any agency
of a public body or political subdivision.


Nothing about protection from prosecution, though.  And as far as I
know, such protection is not provided under federal Qui Tam either.

Let me know if that meets your needs.


Clarification of Question by tucsonchilango-ga on 22 Jul 2005 15:42 PDT
This is helpful.  Thanks for your research.  I think I am in good shape now. 

I also found the following websites:,

These are websites of law firms that do qui tam work.  They both list
which states have statutes similar to the FCA, with qui tam
provisions.  Arizona isn't one of them.

Request for Question Clarification by hummer-ga on 22 Jul 2005 16:37 PDT
Hi tucsonchilango,

State Whistleblower Protection Laws
[see: State Whistleblower Protection Laws]

Is this what you are looking for?
Subject: Re: QUI TAM statute in Arizona
Answered By: pafalafa-ga on 22 Jul 2005 16:46 PDT

Thanks for letting me know you got what you needed, and best of luck
with your situation.

Here's one more resource for you that may be of use:
Selected State Whistleblower Laws and Recent Decisions

They mention a few statutes and cases from Arizona:

Arizona Revised Statutes 23-1501 (Severability of employment
relationships; protection from retaliatory discharges; exclusivity of
statutory remedies in employment)

Garber v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2003 WL 2006828 (D. Ariz. 2003)

Galati v. America West Arilines, Inc., 2003 WL 21263205 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 2003)

Arizona Revised Statutes 41-1492.10 (Prohibition against retaliation and coercion)

Arizona Revised Statutes 36-2282 (Health care institutions)

Make sure to visit the site itself to take advantage of the hyperlinks
to more information.


search strategy -- Google search on [ state whistleblower laws ]
Subject: Re: QUI TAM statute in Arizona
From: myoarin-ga on 22 Jul 2005 10:26 PDT
It is a sticky business, as this site points out.

See at the end of  38  ?contract employer?  which I have not found defined.

The above case seems to indicate that a privately employed
whistleblower can seek protection if the employer?s offense is against
Arizona law, but not US law.

Apparently the subsection below extends  protection to private
employees previously not covered by the law:

Subsection 38-531.4 outlaws discrimination, consistently with the
scope of anti-discrimination laws already independently applicable to
all Arizona public and private employees. It also prohibits common
passive, as well as active reprisals, such as the failure to appoint
or promote which covers the most frequent blacklisting scenarios.

The following is a case that upheld a private employee?s whistleblowing:

But the specific situation of an independent  being protected when
whistling on the State is not addressed.  And I am unclear about from
whom you would want protection:  your employer, or the State  - then
either against you personally or your employer (yourself if you are
working for the State as an individual).

Perhaps this all helps, or suggests further clarification from you.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy