Ninth Circuit tests whether new law can kill existing at-will agreements

Two years later, the Town conducted an employee engagement survey. What followed was an outside human resources firm being brought in to investigate feedback about Blunt. By May 2023, the Town had notified him that it was looking into allegations that he had made unprofessional, offensive, and harassing statements to other employees. Blunt reportedly agreed to sit for an interview with the investigator, but only if he could review the underlying materials first. The Town declined, and the interview never happened. 

The Town terminated Blunt in September 2023. According to the court’s order, neither the Chief of Police nor the Human Resources Executive Director gave Blunt an opportunity to respond to the reasons behind his firing. The Town also did not provide him with a copy of the investigation or offer any appeal process. 

What turns this from a straightforward termination dispute into something far more consequential for HR professionals is the legal question sitting underneath it. 

When Arizona first enacted the Peace Officers Bill of Rights in 2014, the statute allowed law enforcement agencies and their officers to enter into employment contracts that could deviate from its protections. At-will agreements were fair game. In 2022, however, the legislature amended that provision. The new language established the statute as a floor of minimum rights and only permitted agreements that go above and beyond those protections. Agreements that fall short, including at-will arrangements, arguably no longer pass muster under the revised law. 

Blunt’s position is that the 2022 amendment rendered his at-will agreement unenforceable. He argues this is not a case of applying a law retroactively because everything that led to his termination happened after the amendment took effect. The Town sees it differently, maintaining that the amendment cannot reach back to invalidate a contract signed before the law changed and that doing so would violate constitutional protections against the impairment of contracts.