Source: https://www.coloradoemployerslaw.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:53:15+00:00

Document:
As of January 1, 2013, Colorado’s minimum wage increased from $7.64 per hour to $7.78 per hour, with tipped employee’s minimum wage increasing from $4.62 per hour to $4.76 per hour. The Colorado Division of Labor adopted Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 29 (PDF) to reflect the new state minimum wage. The Minimum Wage Order also provides important information about meal periods and rest breaks in Colorado.
Where employees are covered by federal and Colorado state minimum wage laws, the employer must pay the higher minimum wage. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, which is lower than Colorado’s minimum wage of $7.78 per hour. Thus, beginning January 1, 2013, employers in Colorado must ensure all employees receive at least $7.78 per hour for all hours worked (or $4.76 per hour for tipped employees).
The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment is listing the names of individuals prosecuted for unemployment insurance fraud on its website in an attempt to help minimize unemployment fraud and abuse. According to the CDOL website, there were 18 prosecutions in the 1st quarter of 2012, resulting in judgments to recover $223,667.80 in fraudulently paid benefits.
This recovery, however, is just a drop in the bucket of the total amount of overpaid or fraudulent benefits paid out each year in Colorado. According to 9News, approximately $158 million, or 17%, of the total benefits paid in Colorado in 2010 were due to overpayments or fraud.
— with the most efficient states being Vermont (4.54%) and Massachusetts (5.06%).
As I understand, not all of the improper payments are due to fraud. Instead, much of the problem lies with overpayments and clerical errors. For example, claimants who report they have found employment may still get mailed a benefit check even though they no longer qualify for benefits. This is because the CDOL’s computer systems are old and outdated, and it takes a long time for the information to update across systems. As a result, often times, claimants may not even know or understand that they received an “extra” benefit check from the government.
I first found out about the the woeful state of Colorado’s unemployment insurance program and the publishing of names of individuals prosecuted for unemployment fraud and when I attended a Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (CACI) meeting in October 2011 with guest speaker Ellen Golombek, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Labor. To Ms. Golombek’s credit, she appears focused on transparency and implementing needed change to improve the CDOL.
With new and improved systems and efforts to crack down on fraud and erroneous payments, taxpayers in Colorado will hopefully see some relief from the millions and millions of dollars lost each year in improper payments. Certainly, the public identification of unemployment fraudsters is one step forward to attempt to curb abuse.
In addition, Colorado offered an Amnesty Program for individuals to come forward and avoid penalties and prosecution by agreeing to pay back unemployment benefits that they should not have received in the first instance, whether by overpayment or by fraud. The formal Amnesty Program was available only for a limited time, and as I understand, expired as of December 31, 2011. However, the Colorado Unemployment Insurance Benefits Payment Control Hotline (303.318.9035) remains open, and provides an avenue for individuals to contact the Colorado Department of Labor and, depending on the circumstances, enter into voluntary repayment agreements to pay back overpayments and avoid facing penalties, interest and/or other prosecution. More information can be found on the Colorado Department of Labor (Unemployment Insurance and Overpayments) website.
Effective January 1, 2012, Colorado’s minimum wage increased by $0.28, from $7.36 per hour to $7.64 per hour (for tipped employees, from $4.34 to $4.62). This is $0.39 more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
The new minimum wage requirement is set forth in Colorado Minimum Wage Order 28 (PDF) now in effect. Because employers in Colorado must comply with both federal (Fair Labor Standards Act) and state (Colorado Wage Act) laws, the higher prevailing wage must be paid to employees.
This $0.28 increase represents the 3.8% increase to the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 2010 to 2011. Colorado is one of eight states with a minimum wage tied to inflation. The other states include Arizona, Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Colorado’s inflationary adjustment requirement was passed by a relatively close vote on Amendment 42 to the Colorado Constitution in 2006 (823,526 in favor; 721,530 against).
According to the Bell Policy Center in Denver, and as reported by the Denver Post, this year’s minimum wage increase will affect 74,000 workers in Colorado, or 3.4% of Colorado’s workforce.
More information about the 2012 Colorado minimum wage increase can be found on the Colorado Department of Labor website.
As of 11:50 p.m. on November 1, 2011, the City and County of Denver Coordinated Election results were in. By a margin of 66,719 votes (64.02%) against to 37,498 votes (35.98%) in favor, Ballot Initiative 300 – the Denver Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance, failed.
I wrote about this proposed new legislation that would impact employers and workers in the City and County of Denver in my prior blog post: Proposed Denver Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance: Nothing to Sneeze At.
As pointed out by the National Restaurant Association in a recent Huffington Post article, businesses on the whole are not opposed to providing sick leave for their workers, but are opposed to the poorly worded legislation that had unintended consequences. It looks like Denver voters resoundingly agreed.
But, what exactly is the proposed Denver Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance (PDF), and is it really a good idea for Denver?
* Any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close relationship is equivalent to a family relationship.
Where other paid sick leave bills expressly authorize employers to require reasonable notice to be given where practicable when an employee’s need for leave arises, Denver’s new proposed ordinance vaguely says that employers “may not impose unreasonable barriers to use of paid sick and safe time.” What does that mean? An “unreasonable barrier” in one instance could be reasonable under different circumstances. The use of such vague language, rather than clear language allowing employers to require advance notice where practicable, in my view, tips the scale of this legislation away from fair and balanced.
Finally, even though the new ordinance attempts to exempt employers who already provide vacation or personal time off (PTO) in an amount equivalent or greater than the mandated 9 (or 5) days of leave benefits, the rub is that employers must allow the vacation or PTO “under the same conditions as paid sick and safe time” – meaning that if the other leave benefits require prior notice and/or documentation, this new leave bank must be provided in addition. This is another major difference between Denver’s proposed sick leave ordinance than those passed in San Francisco, D.C. and Connecticut. At least in those ordinances or bills, employers who offered more leave days than that legislatively mandated, were deemed in compliance, without all the other restrictions.
Everyone knows that successful, long-term and mutually beneficial employment relationships require employees and employers to work together, and there are a multitude of good employers in Denver and throughout Colorado who strive to keep their workforce happy with generous benefit packages. I am certainly not advocating that employees come to work sick or face losing their job if their child is sent home from school sick. But, is imposing overly broad, vague legislation with unusually restrictive obligations on large and small employers alike, however good in principal, what Denver needs in this economic climate? Governor John Hickenlooper and Mayor Michael Hancock say no, and it is now up to Denver voters to decide in November.
UPDATE: Since first publishing this blog post, Seattle passed its version of paid sick leave legislation in September 2011. Seattle’s 50-page ordinance was approved by the City Council on September 12, 2011 and signed into law by the Mayor on September 23, 2011. Although I have not done a complete side-by-side comparison with Denver’s proposed ordinance, one primary difference is that Seattle’s ordinance provides that employees must work at least 240 hours per year in Seattle to be eligible, while Denver’s proposed ordinance provides leave benefits for eligible employees who work only 40 hours each calendar year.
Colorado Employer’s Law Blog Nominated!
I am pleased to announce that Colorado Employer’s Law Blog has been nominated as a candidate for the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011! To support Colorado Employer’s Law Blog’s nomination, please vote by commenting on the announcement post on LexisNexis’ Labor and Employment Law Community Page.
2. If you haven’t previously registered, you can register on the Labor and Employment Law Community Registration Page for free. Then, vote by making a comment in the comment box at the very bottom of the blog nomination page after registering.
Please vote early and often! The comment period closes on September 12, 2011. Thanks for your support!
On May 31, 2011, in a decision critical to non-compete law in Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its holding in Lucht’s Concrete Pumping Inc. v. Horner (PDF). I previously blogged about the fluctuating state of Colorado’s non-compete law given the decisions below in the Lucht’s case — Colorado Non-Compete Law in Flux (October 7, 2010). For many who have been watching and waiting, The Decision (my sport’s reference for the day…go Heat) has arrived, and it’s favorable for employers.
The Court reasoned that because employment in Colorado is at-will, meaning that an employer may terminate an at-will employee at any time during the employment relationship as a matter of right, the forbearance from terminating an employee presented with a non-compete agreement after hire is sufficient consideration for such an agreement. The Court further reiterated that there appears to be no question that sufficient consideration for a non-compete agreement exists when entered into at the commencement of at-will employment.
I previously blogged in March 2011 on the 1-year anniversary of health care reform. At that time, the 5 principal cases challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act had moved from the district courts to the federal Courts of Appeals. Currently, these cases are almost fully briefed, and 2 of them have been argued.
As we await these important decisions, I had an opportunity to talk about the cases with one of my colleagues, Tom Christina, who spoke about them in a conference in Chicago earlier this month.
The case challenges the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and was filed minutes after President Obama signed the new law.
It was brought by the Attorneys General and/or Governors of 26 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), 2 private citizens, and the National Federation of Independent Business.
The defendants are the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, and their secretaries.
In granting summary judgment in favor of the states and other plaintiffs, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Judge Vinson) held that Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause by requiring most individuals to have health insurance coverage beginning in 2014.
The District Court also ruled that this “individual mandate” provision could not be severed from the remainder of the statute, causing the entire Affordable Care Act to be void.
The Eleventh Circuit appeal was filed by the defendants (Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Treasury, Department of Labor, and their secretaries), seeking to overturn the district court ruling in favor of the states and other plaintiffs.
Below is a summary of my conversation with Tom about the issues in the Florida case and the oral arguments before the Fourth Circuit on May 10, 2011, in two other “Obamacare” cases — Liberty University v. Geithner and Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius.
JLG: Tom, the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in Liberty University v. Geithner and Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius on May 10, 2011. Having reviewed the audio files of the arguments, what issues seemed to interest the Fourth Circuit Judges most?
TMC: In Commonwealth of Virginia, the panel seemed to zero in on whether a state can bring a lawsuit to declare that its citizens’ rights are violated by a federal statute.
In Liberty University, there were two questions that I think were equally important to the Fourth Circuit panel. First, they wanted the plaintiffs to clarify that their lawsuit was challenging only the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act. Second, they questioned whether Congress could regulate individuals’ decisions to purchase insurance coverage, even if that decision is not an activity affecting interstate commerce, as long as the individual mandate is part of a much larger regulatory statute aimed at regulating how Americans pay for health care.
JLG: What’s your read on how the argument went for each side?
TMC: The Judges seemed troubled by the idea that a state could bring a lawsuit challenging the individual mandate because the individual mandate falls on the state’s citizens, not on the state itself. They also seemed receptive to the government’s argument regarding the scope of Congress’ power. Neal Katyal, the Acting Solicitor General of the United States, argued both cases for the government, which is very unusual. The SG ordinarily argues cases only before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a very polished advocate.
JLG: What is the focus of your Amicus Brief in State of Florida v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (PDF)? Does it address the same questions that the Fourth Circuit focused on?
TMC: Our brief in the Florida case primarily addresses the “severability” issue. We ask the Eleventh Circuit to affirm Judge Vinson’s ruling that the entire Act is void if any provision is unconstitutional, and we suggest a legal basis for that ruling that the courts might otherwise overlook.
Specifically, the Act was passed under a very unusual rule adopted by the House of Representatives that required considering it only on an “all or nothing” basis, with no severability provision and no possibility of amendments. The Senate version of healthcare was adopted on December 24, 2009, when the Democrats still had a filibuster-proof majority. However, before the majority leadership of the House and Senate could reconcile their differences on healthcare reform, the Massachusetts special Senate election gave Republicans enough votes in the Senate to filibuster. House leaders knew that if there were any amendments to the Senate version of the bill by the House, the entire bill would then have to go back to the Senate, where a filibuster would prevent it from being enacted. To avoid that result, the House leadership brought the Senate version to the floor under a special rule that prohibited any amendments, so each Representative was required to vote for or against the Act as a “package deal,” with no severability clause.
JLG: Does that argument help the states and other plaintiffs in the Florida case on the merits of their Constitutional claims?
TMC: We think so. If the Eleventh Circuit accepts the principle that the entire Act is void if any provision is void, the states and the private plaintiffs in the Florida case can broaden their attack. For example, they can explain that the individual mandate is an integral part of forcing the states to establish and pay for “Exchanges” where required coverage will be sold, which in turn dovetails with various other tax provisions in the Act, and so on.
TMC: In the Florida case, the states will file a reply brief on May 25, 2011, and oral argument is scheduled for June 8, 2011. Eventually, everyone expects these issues will make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.
UPDATE – On August 11, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 207-page decision and 84-page dissent (PDF), affirming the district court’s (Judge Vinson’s) ruling that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional. However, the Court held that the other provisions of the law are “severable” from the individual mandate, and therefore, may be upheld. Because the 11th Circuit decision is in contrast to the recent 6th Circuit decision upholding the constitutionality of the Act on June 29, 2011, all signs point to the U.S. Supreme Court as the next stop.
On May 9, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a news release announcing the launch of its first application for smartphones – a timesheet to help employees independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed. The App, called “DOL – Timesheet,” is available to download for free on iTunes.
Since the DOL’s announcement, blogs and tweets have been flying about this new tool developed by the DOL Wage & Hour Division (WHD) as part of its ongoing efforts to “achieve compliance with labor standards to protect and enhance the welfare of the Nation’s workforce.” In other words, the DOL WHD has been cracking down on employers who are not in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with respect to the proper payment of wages (minimum wage, overtime), classification of employees (exempt vs. non-exempt), and recordkeeping, and many are viewing this new iPhone App as just another tool in the DOL WHD’s arsenal in the war against employers (the App contains a link to the DOL WHD and information on how to make a complaint).
Employees Now Have More Electronic Discovery Obligations. Employees who install and use the “DOL – Timesheet” App now have their own electronic data and information that they must maintain and preserve in the event a claim arises. Most cases involving the preservation (or improper destruction) of electronic data involve employers getting sanctioned for failing to put proper litigation holds in place and/or destroying relevant information. But now, with employee-maintained programs and Apps, the balance of the electronic discovery playing field may be becoming a little more even. Where employees fail to preserve and not destroy any relevant electronic time and wage records in their possession, employers may be in a position to move for sanctions up to dismissal of a claim depending on the circumstances and level of spoliation. One can also only hope that with the new electronic tools available to employees, courts will begin to crack down on Plaintiff’s lawyers for not properly counseling their clients on “litigation holds” to ensure that the individuals preserve relevant electronic information, including personal emails, text messages, Facebook information, and now, iPhone data.
We May See Less ‘Cocktail Hour’ Stories About Hours Worked. Documented time records are far better than relying on an employee’s memory or guesswork at the amount of work actually performed. Everyone knows that guy at the cocktail party who says he “works like a dog…80 hours a week!” is exaggerating a bit. Still, when the DOL WHD investigates wage and hour complaints, and there is a lack of complete records for whatever reason (e.g., the employee is claiming off-the-clock work or it’s a case involving misclassification of an exempt employee), they rely on these very types of ‘cocktail hour’ statements by employees, which generally operate to provide windfalls to employees. Now, where employees may be tracking hours and wages on their iPhones, here’s hoping that employers will be dealing with fewer verbal statements describing an actual 48-hour week as an 80-hour one.
It remains to be seen how much use this new DOL – Timesheet App will get and how it may play into wage and hour claims and/or lawsuits. But, it will be interesting to follow and see if employers can make lemonade out of lemons by effectively utilizing this new tool as an additional discovery device to possibly find and use key information that could make or break a case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.