Background
Plaintiff Emily Camp Verheggen, an intake supervisor for the Adams County Department of Human Services (ACDHS), was required for many years to work a schedule of seventy-six hours every eight days but was only paid for forty hours per week. After years of questioning this arrangement internally, her attorney sent a formal wage demand letter for over $745,000 in back pay in December 2022. Verheggen subsequently filed a lawsuit in April 2023.
About two months after filing suit, ACDHS suspended Verheggen for two days without pay, citing “unprofessional and disrespectful behavior.” Although the county later rescinded the suspension, it had already escorted her from the office and withheld her pay. Verheggen amended her complaint to allege that the suspension was retaliation for her wage inquiries—specifically the demand letter and lawsuit—in violation of Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA) and the Colorado Anti-discrimination Act (CADA).
The district court dismissed her retaliation claims. It reasoned that because EPEWA and CADA were enacted to address gender-based pay disparities, a valid claim under those acts must include allegations of gender discrimination. Since Verheggen’s complaint did not allege gender discrimination, the court found she failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against ACDHS and its director, holding that an employee is not required to allege gender discrimination to state a claim for retaliation for discussing their wages under EPEWA or CADA. The court conducted a plain-language analysis of the statutes, noting that the provisions prohibiting retaliation for wage discussions are distinct from the provisions prohibiting gender-based pay discrimination. Nothing in the text of the anti-retaliation sections requires that the wage discussion must pertain to gender-based disparities.
The court reasoned that protecting all discussions about wages promotes transparency and helps uncover discriminatory pay practices, thus serving the overall purpose of the acts. It found that Verheggen’s demand letter qualified as a protected activity because it “otherwise discussed” her wages. The court concluded that Verheggen had plausibly alleged a causal link between this protected activity and her suspension, pointing to the escalating pattern of her inquiries culminating in the demand letter, the timing of the suspension, and her allegations that the stated reasons for her discipline were false and procedurally improper.
However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the EPEWA claims against two of Verheggen’s individual supervisors. It concluded that the complaint’s “threadbare recital” of the elements of operational control was insufficient to plausibly allege that the individual supervisors were “employers” with the power to hire, fire, and set wages, as required for individual liability under the act.
Key Takeaways
- Under Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA) and the Colorado Anti-discrimination Act (CADA), employees are protected from retaliation for discussing their wages, even if the discussion is entirely unrelated to gender discrimination.
- Sending a formal wage demand letter to an employer constitutes a protected activity (“discussing” wages) that can form the basis of a retaliation claim under these statutes.
- A retaliation claim can be plausible even if there is a multi-month gap between the protected activity and the adverse action, especially if the plaintiff alleges other supporting facts, such as a pattern of inquiries and pretextual reasons for the discipline.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly clarifies and expands wage transparency protections for workers in Colorado. It establishes that the right to discuss compensation without fear of punishment is a broad, standalone protection under EPEWA and CADA, not one limited to circumstances involving gender bias. The ruling puts employers on notice that any disciplinary action taken against an employee following a wage inquiry—whether a casual conversation, a formal demand letter, or a lawsuit—carries a significant risk of a retaliation claim. By separating the anti-retaliation provisions from the anti-discrimination provisions, the court ensures that wage transparency is protected in its own right, empowering employees to advocate for fair pay without needing to connect their situation to a protected class.