Colorado Court of Appeals Holds Employees Need Not Allege Gender Discrimination to State Wage-Discussion Retaliation Claims Under EPEWA and CADA

By Bill Ojile and Marcus Collins

In a decision addressing an issue of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that an employee need not allege facts relating to gender discrimination to state a retaliation claim for discussing or disclosing wages under either Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (“EPEWA”), C.R.S. § 8-5-102(2)(d), or the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), C.R.S. § 24-34-402(1)(i). Verheggen v. Adams Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2026 COA 62, ¶¶ 2-3.¹

Background

Plaintiff Emily Camp Verheggen worked for the Adams County Department of Human Services (“ACDHS”) as an intake supervisor beginning in 2004. Id. ¶ 4. Her position required her to work 76 hours every eight days, but she was paid for only 40 hours per week. After years of unsuccessfully raising the issue internally, Verheggen sent a wage demand letter through counsel in December 2022 seeking roughly $745,000 in back pay. Id. ¶ 5. In April 2023, she filed suit against the Adams County Board of Commissioners for failure to pay earned wages. Id. ¶ 6. Two months later, ACDHS suspended her without pay for two days, citing alleged unprofessional conduct. Id. ¶ 7. It later rescinded the suspension, but only after escorting her from the office, preventing her from working, and withholding her pay. Id.

Verheggen’s operative complaint alleged that the suspension was retaliation for her wage demand letter and lawsuit, in violation of EPEWA and CADA. Id. ¶ 8. The district court dismissed the claims under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), reasoning that both statutes require allegations of gender discrimination because the laws were enacted to address systemic gender-based pay disparities. Id. ¶ 9. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It reversed the dismissal of Verheggen’s retaliation claims against ACDHS and its director, holding that the plain text of both statutes independently prohibits employer retaliation against employees who inquire about, disclose, or discuss their wages regardless of whether the underlying wage complaint alleges gender discrimination.² Verheggen, 2026 COA 62, ¶¶ 2-3.
 
The Court’s Analysis

A. No Gender-Discrimination Pleading Requirement
The Colorado Court of Appeals examined the text of EPEWA § 8-5-102(2)(d) and CADA § 24-34-402(1)(i), both of which prohibit an employer from discharging, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against an employee “because the employee inquired about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the employee’s wage.” The court found that neither provision contains any textual requirement that the employee’s wage complaint relates to gender discrimination. Verheggen, 2026 COA 62, ¶¶ 20, 23. The court further noted that EPEWA’s substantive equal-pay provision (C.R.S. § 8-5-102(1)) and its anti-retaliation provision (C.R.S. § 8-5-102(2)(d)) are independent, each carrying its own damages provisions under § 8-5-104, confirming that an employee “isn’t required to allege facts related to gender discrimination to bring a retaliation claim under section 8-5-102(2)(d).” Id. ¶¶ 15-19.

Further, the court rejected defendants’ policy arguments that this reading renders EPEWA and CADA redundant of each other or of the Colorado Wage Claim Act (“CWCA”). Id. ¶¶ 24-26.  The court explained that the three statutes provide distinct remedies and have different coverage: the CWCA expressly excludes the state, counties, and municipalities from its definition of “employer,” C.R.S. § 8-4-101(6), whereas both EPEWA and CADA include the state and its political subdivisions. See C.R.S. §§ 8-5-101(5), 24-34-401(3). Id. The court also declined to add judicially created limitations to unambiguous statutory text, noting that any such policy concerns are properly addressed by the legislature. Id. ¶ 27 (citing Oakwood Holdings, LLC v. Mortg. Invs. Enters., LLC, 2018 CO 12, ¶ 12).

B. Protected Activity and Causation

Having resolved the pleading-standard question, the court turned to whether Verheggen otherwise stated a viable retaliation claim. It held that her December 2022 wage demand letter, which discussed her historical schedule, hours worked, pay received, and back wages claimed, constituted protected activity under both statutes’ broad language covering employees who “inquired about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed” their wages. Id. ¶¶ 36-41. On causation, the court rejected the argument that the roughly six-month gap between the demand letter and the suspension was too attenuated to infer retaliation. Id. The court acknowledged that temporal proximity alone is often insufficient to plausibly allege a causal link. Id. ¶ 40 (citing Meiners v. Univ. of Kan., 359 F.3d 1222, 1230-32 (10th Cir. 2004). However, the court found that Verheggen’s complaint contained additional allegations beyond timing alone. Id. Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to Verheggen, the court found a plausible inference of retaliation based on the totality of allegations: a 20-year pattern of wage inquiries culminating in the demand letter, the suspension’s pretextual stated grounds, the unprecedented severity of the discipline, and ACDHS’s failure to follow its standard disciplinary procedures. Id.
 
Takeaways

1. Gender Discrimination Need Not Be Alleged. Employers should understand that an employee need not allege facts relating to gender discrimination to state a retaliation claim for discussing or disclosing wages under either EPEWA, § 8-5-102(2)(d), C.R.S. 2025, or CADA, § 24-34-402(1)(i), C.R.S. 2025. Both statutes protect an employee who inquires about, discloses, compares, or otherwise discusses their wages, regardless of whether the discussion relates to gender-based pay disparities.
 
2. Demand Letters Constitute Protected Activity. A pre-suit demand letter discussing an employee’s wages qualifies as protected activity under both EPEWA and CADA. Employers and supervisors must exercise caution to ensure that no disciplinary action taken after receiving a wage demand letter could be construed as retaliatory.
 
3. Temporal Proximity Alone May Not Establish Causation, but the Totality of the Circumstances Can. Even where a significant time gap exists between protected wage-related activity and an adverse action, courts may still find a plausible causal link where a plaintiff alleges other supporting facts, such as pretext, unusually severe discipline, or departures from standard disciplinary procedures. Employers should ensure that disciplinary decisions are well-documented, consistently applied, and compliant with established internal policies to guard against retaliation claims premised on such circumstantial evidence.