1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Miguel Corzo,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Maricopa County Community College 

District, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02552-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ fully briefed Motion to Partially Dismiss 

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). Pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., 

Defendants seek dismissal of Counts II, III, and IV of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 16). Assuming as true all well-pled factual allegations set forth in 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and interpreting them in a light most favorable to 

the non-moving party, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled causes of action 

for wrongful termination, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion to Partially Dismiss 

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) as set forth below.

I. DISCUSSION

A. COUNT II

In its Order (Doc. 15) filed June 14, 2016, the Court set forth the requirements of 

the Arizona Employment Protection Act (“AEPA”) which an employee must demonstrate 

Case 2:15-cv-02552-ESW Document 22 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in order to challenge a termination of employment. The Court discussed the common law 

surrounding wrongful termination cases in Arizona, the legislative intent behind the 

passage of the AEPA, as well as an analysis of the AEPA under canons of statutory 

construction and common law principals of contract interpretation to delineate what 

Plaintiff must allege to set forth a cause of action for wrongful termination under the 

AEPA. In short, to prevail on a wrongful termination claim for breach of contract under 

the AEPA, Plaintiff must allege breach of a written employment contract signed by both 

parties that meets either of two substantive requirements: (1) the contract states that the 

employment relationship has a specified duration of time, or (2) the contract must 

expressly restrict the right of either party to terminate the employment relationship. 

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 23-1501 (A)(2). There are three alternative methods to establish the 

existence of an employment contract that meets the signing requirement: (1) the written 

contract must be signed by both parties, (2) the written contract must be signed by the 

party to be charged, or (3) the written contract must be included in an employment 

handbook, manual, or similar document that expresses an intent for it to be an 

employment contract. See White v. AKDHC, LLC, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1062 (D. Ariz. 

2009) (citing NLRB v. A-Plus Roofing, 39 F. 3d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir. 1994).

Here, Plaintiff alleges the breach of a written employment contract which 

expressly restricts the right of either party to terminate the employment relationship.

(Doc. 16 at 57). In order to satisfy the signing requirement of the AEPA, Plaintiff sets 

forth allegations of an employment handbook, manual, or similar document that 

expresses the intent for it to be an employment contract. (Id.) Assuming as true all wellpled factual allegations of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and drawing all 

reasonable inferences therefrom in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 

alleged sufficient facts in the Second Amended Complaint to support a cause of action for 

wrongful termination under the AEPA. 

B. COUNTS III and IV

In Counts III and IV Plaintiff alleges a claim for breach of contract and breach of 

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-02552-ESW Document 22 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from Defendants’ alleged 

improper acts and omissions which occurred during the parties’ employment relationship 

unrelated to the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment. The AEPA does 

not prevent an employee and employer from further defining their relationship beyond 

one of the two substantive requirements of sentence one and one of the three formalities 

of sentence two of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 23-1501 (A)(2) necessary for a wrongful 

termination claim. The Court finds that the AEPA does not preclude Plaintiff from 

alleging that conduct other than the termination itself breached the employment contract

and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that Plaintiff states existed between the 

parties. Plaintiff has done so sufficiently in Counts III and IV. See White, 664 F. Supp. 

2d at 1065 (“[A] viable claim for breach of the implied covenant may lie if a plaintiff is 

alleging conduct other than the termination itself breached the covenant.”) (citing 

Comeaux v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 915 F.2d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

Plaintiff has alleged damages consistent with the claims set forth in Counts III and IV. 

The Court will deny the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Partially Dismiss Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). 

Dated this 7th day of November, 2016. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:15-cv-02552-ESW Document 22 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 3