March 2026 Labor Law Updates for Denver, Colorado
March 2026 brought several notable Colorado labor law developments, including a Tenth Circuit ruling on COVID-related retaliation claims, a Colorado Court of Appeals unemployment decision, an EEOC settlement involving age discrimination and retaliation, and meaningful movement on workplace legislation in the General Assembly. This roundup from HKM Employment Attorneys is designed to help employees, HR professionals, and compliance leaders track important Colorado labor law and Colorado workplace rights developments from the month.
Colorado’s March 2026 employment update shows how quickly the state’s workplace rules can evolve through courts, agencies, and the legislature. If you have questions about Colorado workplace rights, compliance obligations, or a potential employment claim, contact HKM Employment Attorneys at hkm.com.
Forbes v. Best Buy Co., Inc. — Court Ruling
Date: March 19, 2026
Summary:
In Forbes v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Nos. 25-1168 & 25-1276, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Best Buy in a case arising from a Colorado employee’s termination after a COVID-related absence. The employee argued that his firing violated Colorado’s Healthy Families and Workplaces Act and the Public Health Emergency Whistleblower Act, but the court held there was no evidence of retaliatory intent and emphasized that the termination followed his failure to return to work when he said he would and his three consecutive no-notice absences.
Implications:
For Colorado employers, the ruling is a reminder that retaliation claims tied to protected sick leave or public health complaints still turn heavily on proof of motive and documentation. For employees, the case shows that invoking protected leave rights does not automatically insulate later attendance-related conduct from discipline if the employer can point to a separate, well-documented reason for discharge.
Delgado v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office — Court Ruling
Date: March 19, 2026
Summary:
In Delgado v. ICAO, No. 25CA2381, the Colorado Court of Appeals set aside an order denying unemployment benefits and remanded for additional findings. The court held that the hearing officer and Panel had not adequately addressed whether the claimant resigned under a reasonable belief that termination was imminent. The opinion explained that, under Colorado law, a resignation is not necessarily voluntary if an employee reasonably believes discharge is about to happen, and that issue had to be properly analyzed before benefits could be denied.
Implications:
This decision matters for Colorado employees and HR teams dealing with separations, especially in tense performance-management situations. It reinforces that unemployment eligibility may depend on the real circumstances of a resignation, not just the label attached to it, and that a purported resignation can be treated more like a discharge if the employee reasonably believed termination was imminent.
Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company Settlement — EEOC Enforcement Action
Date: March 9, 2026
Summary:
The EEOC announced that Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company, described as a Boulder, Colorado-based company also known as ASWO, agreed to pay $350,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA. According to the EEOC, the case involved allegations that the company retaliated against an employee after complaints of age discrimination; the two-year consent decree also requires training, policy review, notice posting, injunctive relief, and reporting obligations.
Implications:
For Colorado employers, this is a strong reminder that retaliation claims can create substantial exposure even when the underlying dispute begins as an age bias complaint. For workers and HR leaders, the settlement underscores the EEOC’s continued focus on protecting employees who raise discrimination concerns and the importance of handling internal complaints carefully and consistently.
HB26-1207: Disclosure of Demographic Workforce Data — Legislation
Date: March 16, 2026 (House passage); March 19, 2026 (introduced in Senate)
Summary:
Colorado House Bill 26-1207, titled Disclosure of Demographic Workforce Data, would require private employers with 100 or more workers doing business in Colorado to include EEO-1 demographic workforce data in periodic reports to the secretary of state. The bill passed the House on third reading on March 16, 2026, by a 43-19 vote, and was introduced in the Senate on March 19, 2026.
Implications:
If enacted, the bill could increase transparency expectations for larger Colorado employers and create another compliance touchpoint around workforce demographic reporting. Employers with multi-state workforces should watch this proposal closely because it would tie state reporting obligations to data many large employers already collect through the federal EEO-1 process.
HB26-1005: Worker Protection Collective Bargaining — Legislation
Date: March 9, 2026 (House passage); March 24, 2026 (Senate committee action)
Summary:
HB26-1005, Worker Protection Collective Bargaining, proposes major changes to Colorado’s Labor Peace Act. According to the bill summary, it would eliminate the second election currently required to negotiate a union-security clause, specify that employees’ bargaining rights include mandatory subjects of bargaining, and require both employers and employees’ exclusive representatives to bargain in good faith. The bill passed the House on March 9, 2026, by a 42-22 vote, and on March 24 the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee referred it to Appropriations on a 3-2 vote.
Implications:
This was one of the month’s most consequential Colorado labor law developments for unionized workplaces and employers with union exposure. If enacted, the bill would meaningfully reshape collective bargaining rules in Colorado by lowering barriers tied to union-security negotiations and clarifying bargaining obligations.
SB26-081: Increase Agricultural Employee Overtime Protections — Legislation
Date: March 19, 2026
Summary:
SB26-081 would have expanded overtime protections for agricultural employees by requiring overtime pay for work beyond 40 hours in a workweek, 12 hours in a workday, or 12 consecutive hours. On March 19, 2026, the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee voted down a motion to send the bill to Appropriations and then postponed it indefinitely on a 3-2 vote, leaving the measure in a lost status.
Implications:
Even though the bill did not advance, it is still an important March 2026 employment update because it shows continued legislative attention to agricultural labor standards in Colorado. Agricultural employers should keep watching this area, as overtime protections for farmworkers remain an active policy issue that could return in future sessions.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Colorado’s Labor Law Updates from March 2026
Colorado’s shifting landscape in employment law—from wrongful termination and wage-and-hour violations to reasonable accommodations and ethics investigations—underscores the importance of having local counsel. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Denver, our Colorado-based advocates have delivered comprehensive support, fighting for compensation under the Wage Act, negotiating employment contracts, and conducting employer investigations when needed . Our team’s depth of experience and commitment ensure you’re not navigating this alone. When court decisions resonate with your experience, contact our Denver office to learn how we can help protect your rights and pursue justice in your case.
