Skip to main content

Glapion-Pressley v. City and County of Denver

D. Colo.May 24, 2022No. 1:21-cv-02362
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the discrimination claims against the City and County of Denver.

What This Ruling Means

**Glapion-Pressley v. City and County of Denver: Employment Discrimination Case** This case involved a civil rights employment discrimination lawsuit against the City and County of Denver. An employee named Glapion-Pressley claimed they faced discrimination while working for the city government. The specific details of what type of discrimination occurred or the circumstances surrounding the complaint are not available from the court records provided. The case made its way to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, indicating it was a significant employment law matter that went beyond the initial trial court level. However, the specific outcome of the court's decision is not detailed in the available information. **What This Means for Workers:** This case demonstrates that government employees have the right to challenge discrimination in their workplace through the federal court system. When workers believe they've faced discrimination based on protected characteristics like race, gender, age, or disability, they can pursue legal action even against large employers like city governments. The fact that this case reached the federal appeals court level shows that employment discrimination claims are taken seriously by the judicial system and can result in lengthy legal proceedings that thoroughly examine workplace civil rights violations.

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
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.