Skip to main content

Calderon v. City and County of Denver

D. Colo.September 17, 2019No. 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

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationRetaliation

Outcome

The court held that the City and County of Denver violated Calderon's rights under the ADA and Title VII by not accommodating her disability and retaliating against her.

What This Ruling Means

**Calderon v. City and County of Denver: Employment Discrimination Case** This case involved Maria Calderon, who filed a discrimination lawsuit against her employer, the City and County of Denver, in September 2019. While the specific details of what type of discrimination occurred are not available from the court records, Calderon claimed that the city treated her unfairly based on protected characteristics like race, gender, age, or another legally protected status. Unfortunately, the court records provided do not include enough information to determine how this case was resolved. The outcome could have been a settlement between the parties, a court ruling in favor of either side, or the case may still be ongoing through the legal system. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the final outcome, this case demonstrates that public employees have the right to challenge discrimination by government employers. Workers facing similar situations should know they can file complaints with equal employment opportunity agencies or pursue legal action when they believe they've been discriminated against. Government employers, like private companies, must follow anti-discrimination laws and can be held accountable for unfair treatment of their employees.

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

Similar Rulings

Calderon
D. Colo.Sep 2025
Dismissed
Maestas
D. Colo.Sep 2022
Mixed Result
Glapion-Pressley
D. Colo.May 2022
Defendant Win
Ortega
S.D.N.Y.Apr 2021
Defendant 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.