Colorado
Discussion
Colorado: Legislative Updates
|
APPLIES TO As Indicated |
EFFECTIVE As Indicated |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
The Colorado legislature recently enacted three bills impacting employers: adding to CADA’s definitions; implementing state-mandated EEO reporting for 2026; and prohibiting employers from retaining ID documents for longer than 10 hours.
ID Protections. As of June 3, 2026, HB 1283 immediately prohibits employers from retaining an applicant or employee’s government-issued identification documents (ID) (e.g., state-issued driver’s license, passports, or other government-issued documents) for longer than 10 hours. Primarily, retention of ID’s are permitted for purposes of verifying work authorization when completing Form I-9, including to make a copy of the ID. Copies of ID’s may be retained in an employer’s records. ID’s may also be requested and retained for any other purpose when required or permitted by state or federal law or regulation, or when performed pursuant to a signed judicial warrant.
Employers are required to immediately begin providing applicants and employees with notice of their rights under this bill and the person must acknowledge receipt of the notice at the time the employer is verifying their work authorization eligibility. A violation of this new rule causes criminal and civil liability for employers. Violations will also be considered bias-motivated crimes. Additionally, it is a bias-motivated crime to provide, or threaten to provide, an individual’s ID to federal immigration authorities, except where otherwise permitted or required under state or federal law.
CADA Definitions. Effective August 12, 2026, HB 1045 amends the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) by adding two definitions. “Assistance animal” means an animal that does work, performs tasks, assists, or provides therapeutic emotional support to an individual with a disability, and includes an emotional support animal and a service animal. “Emotional support animal” means an animal that provides solely emotional support to an individual to alleviate a symptom or an effect of a disability.
State EEO Reporting. Effective July 1, 2027, under HB 1207, private employers who normally report EEO-1 data will be required to submit their reports to the Secretary of State. The same rules as apply to EEO-1 reporting as it existed on March 1, 2026 apply to Colorado, even if the federal EEO-1 reporting is repealed or discontinued.
Action Items
- Provide employees with notice of rights on ID retention for signature.
- Prepare to submit 2026 EEO-1 reporting to the state in 2027.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on updated requirements.
Colorado: FAMLI Updates
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CO |
EFFECTIVE JUL 1, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
As of July 1, 2026, the Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act (FAMLI) revised its rules (7 CCR 1107-3) to describe qualifying absences for which benefits may be paid. An absence is caused by a qualifying condition only if it would not have occurred but for the qualifying condition, except for holiday absences covered during continuous leave. This revision helps clarify the types of absences that qualify individuals for benefits.
The FAMLI appeals rules (7 CCR 1107-9) were also amended. Specifically, FAMLI benefits are not owed if a party files a motion to reconsider within five business days after a hearing officer reverses or modifies the denial of a FAMLI claim. A hearing officer may also reconsider their own ruling within five days (rather than 14 days) of issuance. If an individual is owed benefits as a result, they must be paid within five business days of resolution of a motion to reconsider.
Action Items
- Update leave policies, as applicable.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on FAMLI requirements.
Colorado: Self-Defense Exception to At-Will Employment
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CO |
EFFECTIVE JUN 15, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Moreno v. Circle K Stores, the Colorado Supreme Court answered a question certified to it from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado: whether Colorado law recognizes a public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine allowing a wrongful-termination claim when an employee is fired for acting in self-defense.
Here, a 72-year-old employee was confronted during her shift by a man who picked up two hunting knives and walked around the counter toward her after demanding free cigarettes. The employee extended her arms to keep him back; the assailant grabbed cigarettes, left, and was later arrested for armed robbery. The employer fired the employee for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, which instructs employees not to “confront[,] follow, pursue, track, chase, fight[,] or follow” any customer suspected of shoplifting. The employee sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that Colorado recognizes a self-defense public-policy exception to at-will employment. The Court focused on whether self-defense is a “clearly expressed” right that an employee holds as a worker. It concluded that both the state’s self-defense statute and Colorado Constitution clearly express the boundaries of the right through explicit language and an extensive body of case law. The Court further found that self-defense is an “essential, inalienable right” belonging to all people (making it a public right rather than a merely personal or proprietary one) and that it is “job-related” because the need to defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can arise anywhere, including at work.
The Court emphasized that the exception it recognized is narrow, meaning it is limited to self-defense as an inalienable right and applies only when an employee lawfully exercises that right in response to an unprovoked attack at work. The Court was also careful to clarify what the case was not deciding. It expressed no opinion on whether the employer’s policy actually barred self-defense or merely prohibited confronting shoplifters, nor on whether the employee actually acted in self-defense or whether the employer fired her for that reason, which remain disputed factual questions.
Action Items
- Review No Confrontation policies and update as needed for compliance.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on requirements.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase