Skip to main content

Calderon v. City and County of Denver

D. Colo.September 25, 2025No. 1:18-cv-00756
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

HarassmentRetaliation

Outcome

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous and lacking an arguable basis in law and fact. The plaintiff sought an injunction against unknown persons based on allegations of conspiracy and harassment that the court found to be delusional.

What This Ruling Means

**Calderon v. City and County of Denver: Court Dismisses Harassment Claims** This case involved a worker who sued the City and County of Denver, claiming harassment and retaliation. The employee also alleged there was a conspiracy involving unknown people working against them. The worker was seeking a court order to stop this alleged harassment and conspiracy. The court dismissed the entire lawsuit, ruling that the claims were frivolous and had no legal basis. The judge found that the harassment and conspiracy allegations appeared to be delusional rather than based on actual workplace misconduct. Because the worker was proceeding without paying court fees (due to financial hardship), the court used special rules that allow judges to dismiss cases early when they lack merit. **What this means for workers:** This case shows that courts require solid evidence and reasonable claims when filing workplace harassment or retaliation lawsuits. Workers need to document specific incidents with dates, witnesses, and clear connections between their complaints and any negative treatment. Vague allegations or claims that seem disconnected from reality will be dismissed quickly. If you believe you're facing workplace harassment, focus on gathering concrete evidence and consider consulting with an employment attorney to ensure your claims have legal merit before filing.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Maestas
D. Colo.Sep 2022
Mixed Result
Glapion-Pressley
D. Colo.May 2022
Defendant Win
Ortega
S.D.N.Y.Apr 2021
Defendant Win
Calderon
D. Colo.Sep 2019
Plaintiff Win
v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
COLOCTAPPSep 2019

Claimant is a firefighter for the City and County of Denver (the City). In July 2013, he was diagnosed with cancer, and on July 24, 2013, he advised the City of his cancer diagnosis and asserted his belief that the melanoma was related to or caused by his work as a City firefighter. Claimant filed an application for hearing on October 6, 2017, seeking medical and temporary total disability benefits. The City admitted compensability, but asserted a statute of limitations defense, arguing that the claim was barred because claimant filed his application more than four years after learning of his melanoma and reporting it to the City. A panel of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) agreed with the City, and the claim was dismissed as time barred. On appeal, claimant contended that the Panel misinterpreted the applicable statute of limitations, CRS § 8-43-103(2). He argued that the City had adequate notice of his intent to pursue compensation through the Division of Workers' Compensation's (Division) assignment of a claim number to the case, the City's filing of certain forms, and his filing of several documents. CRS § 8-43-103(2) requires a claimant seeking workers' compensation to file a "notice claiming compensation" within two years of discovering the work-related nature of the claimant's injuries, or within three years if the claimant can establish a reasonable excuse for late filing and the employer suffered no prejudice as a result. The Division's assignment of a claim number does not satisfy a claimant's obligation to notify the Division and the employer of his or her intent to seek compensation, and none of the documents claimant points to specifies that claimant was seeking compensation as that term is defined in CRS § 8-43-103. Based on claimant's admission that he knew in 2013 that his firefighting duties may have caused his melanoma, he needed to file his claim by 2015 to comply with the two-year statute of limitations, or by 2016 if he could establis

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.