Colorado — Hiring & Onboarding

Colorado's Chance to Compete Act (C.R.S. § 8-2-130) prohibits employers from inquiring into or requiring disclosure of an applicant's criminal history on an initial written or electronic application form. The ban also extends to job advertisements: employers may not state in an ad that persons with a criminal history may not apply. The law applies to employers with 11 or more employees (as of September 1, 2019) and to all employers regardless of size (as of September 1, 2021). Employers may, however, run criminal background checks at any time during the hiring process; the restriction applies only to questions on the initial application itself.

Source: C.R.S. § 8-2-130 and CDLE INFO #9C

Colorado's lawful off-duty activities statute, C.R.S. § 24-34-402.5, makes it a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate an employee for engaging in any lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours. The statute is sometimes called the "smokers' rights law" or "lifestyle discrimination statute" because it was originally enacted to protect employees from termination based on lawful personal choices such as tobacco use outside of work. The protection is broad: it covers any activity that qualifies as "lawful," extending beyond smoking to potentially include political activities, hobbies, and other off-duty conduct.

Statutory Exceptions

The statute includes two express exceptions that permit employer restrictions on off-duty activities. An employer may terminate an employee for off-duty lawful activity if the restriction:

• (a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees (rather than to all employees of the employer); or

• (b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.

These exceptions allow employers to impose targeted restrictions when the off-duty activity genuinely affects job duties or creates a conflict. For example, an employer may prohibit a safety-sensitive employee from activities that directly impair their ability to perform critical functions, or may restrict outside employment that competes with the employer's business.

"Lawful" Defined — The Federal-State Conflict Over Marijuana

The central interpretive question under § 24-34-402.5 is what "lawful" means. The Colorado Supreme Court addressed this directly in Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 350 P.3d 849 (Colo. 2015). Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic, held a state-issued medical marijuana license and used marijuana at home during nonworking hours to treat muscle spasms. Dish Network terminated him after he tested positive for THC in a random drug test, and Coats sued under § 24-34-402.5, arguing that his state-licensed medical marijuana use was a "lawful activity."

The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously held that "lawful" means lawful under both state and federal law. Because marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812, with no recognized medical-use exception, the Court concluded that medical marijuana use—though permitted by Colorado's constitution—is not a "lawful activity" for purposes of § 24-34-402.5. The Court declined to read a state-law-only limitation into the term "lawful," noting that "nothing in the language of the statute limits the term 'lawful' to state law." Id. at 853. The holding means that employers in Colorado may lawfully terminate or refuse to hire applicants who use marijuana, whether recreationally or medically, even if the use is entirely off-duty and compliant with Colorado state law.

Practical Implications for Hiring and Onboarding

Employers may enforce zero-tolerance drug policies that prohibit marijuana use and may condition employment on passing a drug test. Applicants and employees have no statutory protection under § 24-34-402.5 for off-duty marijuana consumption. Employers should document drug-testing policies clearly in employee handbooks and ensure consistent enforcement. While the statute broadly protects lawful off-duty activities—such as lawful firearm ownership, lawful political participation, or lawful hobbies—it does not extend to conduct that violates federal law, regardless of state-level legalization.

Legislative efforts to extend employment protections to off-duty marijuana users have been introduced but not enacted. HB 22-1152, which would have prohibited employers from taking adverse action based on off-duty cannabis use, did not advance beyond introduction in the 2022 session. Until Colorado law changes, employers retain the right to maintain drug-free workplace policies that include marijuana, and applicants should be aware that off-duty marijuana use remains grounds for rejection or termination.

Source: C.R.S. § 24-34-402.5 Source: Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 350 P.3d 849 (Colo. 2015)

Colorado’s “Chance to Compete Act” (C.R.S. § 8-2-130) generally prohibits asking about criminal history on initial written or electronic applications. Section § 8-2-130(4) carves out three statutory exceptions where the prohibition does not apply:

1. Legal disqualification: When federal, state, or local law or regulation prohibits employing a person with a specific criminal history in that position.
2. Re-entry or second-chance programs: When the position is designated by the employer to participate in a government program (federal, state, or local) to encourage employment of people with criminal histories.
3. Mandatory background check requirements: When the employer is required by law or regulation to conduct a criminal history record check for that role — regardless of whether the worker is an employee or independent contractor.

Source: C.R.S. § 8-2-130(4), 2024 PDF p.547-548

What “reasonably specific” means (exception 1)

If relying on exception (1) — legal disqualification — the employer may include criminal-history questions at the application stage only if the job posting or application is “reasonably specific” as to what criminal history disqualifies. That means the employer must clearly identify:

• the type of conviction or crime (e.g., “convictions for sexual offenses against minors,” “drug-related felony within the past 10 years,” etc.), and
• why that criminal history makes the applicant ineligible under the relevant law.

Vague language like “any criminal history” or “certain convictions” isn’t enough. The employer must tie the exclusion directly to the statutory disqualification and state it clearly. Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, INFO #9C on Chance to Compete Act rules

Colorado’s Chance to Compete Act (C.R.S. § 8-2-130) generally prohibits employers from inquiring into or requiring disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history on an initial written or electronic application form. However, the statute carves out three narrow exceptions in § 8-2-130(4) where employers may include criminal history questions at the earliest stage. Each exception has its own specific trigger and, in some cases, detailed requirements:

1. Legal disqualification by statute or regulation. Employers may ask about criminal history on the initial application if a federal, state, or local law or regulation explicitly bars employment of someone with a specific type of criminal history for that position. Example: A state law prohibits hiring individuals convicted of certain sexual offenses to work at child care centers. Requirement: The job posting or application must be "reasonably specific"—it must clearly state which specific convictions disqualify an applicant under the relevant law. Generic language such as "no criminal convictions" is insufficient; the legal bar and the type of conviction must be identified.

1. Hiring through government re-entry or "second chance" programs. If the employer has designated a position to participate in a federal, state, or local government program aimed at promoting the employment of people with criminal histories, the restriction does not apply. Example: A program designed to incentivize hiring individuals with felony records.

1. Mandatory background check. Employers are exempt when a law or regulation (federal, state, or local) requires a criminal history record check for the position, regardless of whether hiring as an employee or independent contractor. In this case, criminal history may be addressed at the application phase to ensure legal compliance.

Summary table:

• Exception (1): Disqualification by law — Must be specific about what criminal history is disqualifying and cite the law.
• Exception (2): Job is in a government “second chance” program — Must be part of an official re-entry initiative.
• Exception (3): Background check legally required — Applies to statutory or regulatory background check mandates.

Employers relying on any exception should document the legal or program basis supporting their practice, and should use only the narrowest language necessary to comply with statutory or regulatory demands.

Source: C.R.S. § 8-2-130(4) Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, INFO #9C

Enforcement Mechanisms:

Under the Colorado Chance to Compete Act (C.R.S. § 8-2-130), the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) is the responsible enforcement agency. Individuals who believe an employer has violated the law may file a written complaint with the CDLE. The CDLE will then investigate complaints and may issue penalties if a violation is found.

Complaint Procedures:

A person must file a written complaint with the CDLE within one year after the alleged violation occurred (C.R.S. § 8-2-130(5)(a)). The statute does not require exhaustion of internal employer grievance procedures before filing with the state.

Penalty/Tiered Fine Structure:

C.R.S. § 8-2-130(5)(b) establishes a tiered fine structure for violations:

• First violation: Warning and an order requiring compliance.
• Second violation: Fine of up to $1,000.
• Third and subsequent violations: Fine of up to $2,500 per violation.

The CDLE also publishes notice of violations on its website, adding a public transparency element to the enforcement scheme (C.R.S. § 8-2-130(5)(c)).

No Private Right of Action:

The Act does not authorize individuals to bring a lawsuit in court for violations; enforcement is handled exclusively through the CDLE’s administrative process. Agencies and local governments may also investigate employers under their jurisdiction, but the Act centralizes authority with the CDLE for most cases.

Source: C.R.S. § 8-2-130(5)

Under Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA, C.R.S. § 8-5-101 et seq.), every job posting or internal job-opportunity notice for work to be performed in Colorado must include:

• The hourly rate or salary, or a range of such compensation the employer in good faith believes it might pay for that specific job (C.R.S. § 8-5-201(2); 7 CCR 1103-13 – Rule 4.1.1(A)). • A general description of benefits and other compensation, such as bonuses, commissions, tips, health insurance, paid leave, retirement, and other forms reportable for federal tax purposes (C.R.S. § 8-5-201(2); 7 CCR 1103-13 – Rule 4.1.1(B)). • For remote roles that may be performed in Colorado, the posting must include the Colorado-specific pay disclosure—even if the role is posted elsewhere (INFO #9A). If pay varies by location, the posting must clearly indicate Colorado pricing or state that pay won’t fall below the highest local minimum wage in Colorado (INFO #9A).

Ranges must be bona fide and reflect what the employer genuinely anticipates paying depending on qualifications or other factors. Colorado forbids open-ended formats like “$30,000 and up” or “up to $60,000” (INFO #9A). There is no employer-size threshold—the law applies to any employer with at least one Colorado employee. Job postings that omit this required information (e.g., saying “DOE” or not listing pay/benefits) violate the statute and are subject to CDLE enforcement (C.R.S. § 8-5-201(2); INFO #9A).

Source: C.R.S. § 8-5-201 Source: 7 CCR 1103-13, Rule 4.1.1 Source: CDLE INFO #9A

Colorado’s Job Application Fairness Act (JAFA), codified at C.R.S. § 8-2-131, prohibits most Colorado employers from requesting or requiring information related to an applicant’s age in the initial job application. Specifically, as of July 1, 2024, employers may not ask for an applicant’s date of birth, dates of attendance at or graduation from an educational institution, or any other age-identifying information on an initial written or electronic application form.

Scope and Covered Employers: The law applies to all employers in Colorado, public and private, except for the narrow exceptions listed below. "Initial application" means any form or document used to collect information about job applicants prior to an interview or the extension of a conditional offer of employment.

Exceptions:

• Bona fide age requirements: Employers may inquire into age only if age is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ, meaning the job genuinely requires a worker of a certain age by law or business necessity) or required by federal or state law/regulation for the position.
• Voluntary disclosure: If the employer’s online application system automatically collects age-identifying information, it must make clear—conspicuously and in writing—that providing such information is voluntary and will not be used in the hiring decision.
• Required documentation: Employers may request documents that identify age (such as copies of transcripts or driver’s licenses) only after determining an applicant meets the minimum qualifications, and only if the employer notifies applicants in advance that such documentation will be required later in the hiring process.

Enforcement and Penalties: The Act is enforced by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics. Individuals can file complaints with the Division, which may impose donations to the Colorado Youth Employment Opportunity Fund for violations—ranging from warnings to fines (up to $1,000 for first offense, $2,500 for subsequent, C.R.S. § 8-2-131(5)). There is no private right of action; complaints must proceed through the agency process.

Source: C.R.S. § 8-2-131 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, INFO #9B