Opinion ID: 162752
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wrongful Discharge Claims Under Colorado Law

Text: Under Colorado law, an at-will employee may assert a claim that he or she has been terminated in violation of public policy. In order to prevail on such a claim, the at-will employee must establish the following elements: [1] that the employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the employee’s work related duties or prohibited the employee from performing a public duty or exercising an important job-related right or privilege; [2] that the action directed by the employer would violate a specific statute relating to the public health, safety, or welfare, or would undermine a clearly expressed public policy relating to the employee’s basic responsibility as a citizen or the employee's right or privilege as a worker; and [3] that the employee was terminated as the result of refusing to perform the act directed by the employer . . . . [and] [4] that the employer was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, that the employee’s refusal to comply with the employer's order or directive was based on the employee’s reasonable belief that the action ordered by the employer was illegal, contrary to clearly expressed statutory policy relating to the employee’s duty as a citizen, or violative of the employee’s legal right or privilege as a worker. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo. 1992) (emphasis added). Colorado courts have applied this framework to claims alleging retaliatory discharge on the basis of the filing of a workers’ compensation claim. In Lathrop, the court held that “since an employee is granted the specific right to apply for and receive compensation under the [Workmen’s Compensation Act of Colorado, -12- Col. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-40-101—8-66-112], an employer’s retaliation against such an employee for his exercise of such right violates Colorado’s public policy.” 770 P. 2d at 1373. Thus, “the violation of such public policy provides the basis for a common law claim by the employee to recover damages sustained by him as a result of that violation.” Id. Here, the district court applied this framework to reject Mr. Freeman’s claims. Because Mr. Freeman remained on EIS, the court reasoned, he could not establish one of the necessary elements, and United was thus entitled to judgment as a matter of law.