Gender Based Wage Retaliation Claims in Colorado Need Not Allege Sex or Gender Discrimination
Bayan Biazar, Associate
A recent Colorado Court of Appeals Opinion, Verheggen v. Adams County Department of Human Services, 2026 COA 62,[1] held that an employee need not allege that a pay dispute involved sex or gender discrimination to state a valid discrimination claim under Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA) and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). The Court of Appeals also affirmed dismissal of the EPEWA claims against two individually named supervisors, reasoning that individual liability under the EPEWA still depends on well-pleaded facts.
Case Background
Plaintiff, a longtime employee of the Adams County Department of Human Services (“ACDHS”), alleged that after a 2004 promotion to an intake supervisor position, she was required to work seventy-six (76) hours every eight days, but received pay for only forty (40) hours of work per week. In December 2022, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent ACDHS a wage demand letter seeking $745,461.39 in back pay, which ACDHS did not pay. She filed an initial complaint against ACDHS in April 2023, and two months later received a “Written Reprimand and Two-Day Suspension Without Pay” that ACDHS later rescinded, but only after escorting her from the office and withholding her pay. Plaintiff’s operative complaint named ACDHS, ACDHS Director Katie McDougal, Deputy Director Kari Daggett, and Plaintiff’s supervisor Sabrina Burbidge as Defendants, alleging that they violated the EPEWA (all four Defendants) and CADA (ACDHS only) by suspending her in retaliation for the demand letter and the lawsuit.
The Court of Appeals Decision
The Defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court agreed that Plaintiff’s claim failed because she hadn’t alleged that the suspension was retaliation for gender-based pay concerns and reasoning that both the EPEWA and CADA were enacted to remedy gender-based pay disparities. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the anti-retaliation provisions[2] in both statutes broadly protect employees who inquire about, disclose, compare, or otherwise discuss their wages,[3] without requiring any allegation of sex-based disparity or other protected-characteristic discrimination.[4]
The Court explained that the EPEWA’s prohibition on sex-based wage discrimination[5] and its separate prohibition on retaliating against wage discussions[6] are independent grounds for liability and an employer need only violate one to be liable and CADA’s parallel retaliation provision likewise contains no gender-discrimination requirement.[7]
The ruling was not, however, a complete win for Plaintiff. The Court agreed with the Defendants that Plaintiff hadn’t plausibly alleged that Daggett and Burbidge (both ACDHS employees like Plaintiff) qualified as “employers” under the EPEWA,[8] finding that Plaintiff’s allegations of operational control over hiring, firing, wages, and records was not enough to qualify them as employers. The Court affirmed dismissal of the EPEWA claims against Daggett and Burbidge individually and reversed dismissal of the EPEWA and CADA claims against ACDHS and McDougal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court also rejected the Defendants’ argument that the roughly six-month gap between the demand letter and the suspension defeated causation.
Employer Considerations
The Court of Appeals decision in Verheggen presents important considerations for Colorado employers. Based on this ruling, it can be inferred that any wage-related inquiry or complaint qualifies as protected activity under the EPEWA and CADA and employers should be cautious to treat it as such. Additionally, liability now is not limited to one theory. Employers could face retaliation claims under two separate Colorado statutes, which could carry significant exposure since the damages available for violations of the EPEWA and CADA are not entirely the same. Finally, post Verheggen, it would be beneficial for employers to train higher-level supervisors and human resources personnel to understand the nuances related to wage complaints, retaliation and gender discrimination and to recognize that those issues can overlap, before taking any disciplinary action.
[1] See https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2026-07/25CA1663-PD.pdf for the full Court of Appeals Opinion.
[2] See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-5-102(1), (2)(d) and § 24-34-402(1)(i).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-5-102(1).
[6] Id. at § (2)(d).
[7] See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402(1)(i).
[8] See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-101(5) (defining “employer” under the EPEWA).