Wage Theft Cases

Modification of child support obligation abuse of discretion gross income overtime earnings social security wages plain error downward deviation. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in including all of father's overtime earnings in gross income when calculating parents' child support obligations where father offered no testimony or other evidence explaining what portion of his earnings constituted overtime. Trial court did not commit plain error in using the amounts listed as social security wages on the parties' W-2 forms in calculating the parties' child support obligations. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding mother a downward deviation for transportation costs associated with her exercise of her parenting time. Trial court did not place an unequal value on mother's volunteer services and did not abuse its discretion in failing to order mother to pay additional child support based on father's contributions toward the children's school fees and expenses.

FLSA, Class Certification- Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of an FLSA class pursuant to 29 USC 216(b) based on a clock-in and clock-out rounding policy. The magistrate found that potential plaintiffs were identified and submitted affidavits. However, the magistrate found evidence of a widespread discriminatory practice lacking because defendant did not uniformly enforce the clock-in and clock-out rounding policy and, therefore, that plaintiffs could not prove a violation as to all plaintiffs. Thus, the magistrate recommended denial of conditional class certification.

Summary judgment race discrimination promissory estoppel overtime hours discovery motions. Trial court erred by granting summary judgment to defendant-employer regarding employee's race discrimination claim, because there are genuine issues of material fact. Summary judgment was properly granted to employer regarding employee's promissory estoppel and violation of Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act claims. Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.

The litigants, a municipality and a union, are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which, among other things, governs union members' overtime compensation. The parties, as required by the CBA, submitted an overtime dispute to binding arbitration with the arbitrator ruling in the union's favor. The trial court vacated the arbitration award finding that the arbitrator, by ignoring unambiguous contractual language, exceeded his authority. The arbitrator's decision is consistent with a reasonable, appropriate interpretation of the contested contractual language thus, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority. Judgment reversed and remanded.

The trial court ordered the Appellant to pay its employee for the full twelve hours of a work shift excused due to the employee's jury service. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the trial court's judgment and order that the case be dismissed.

Unemployment compensation just cause to quit failure to pay as promised. UCRC's decision finding no just cause to quit and disallowing employee's unemployment compensation benefits was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Hearing officer's decision improperly found that employee's failure to quit "immediately" and failure to notify anyone other than his immediate supervisor of workplace issues did not amount to just cause to quit. Furthermore, hearing officer improperly concluded that the employer's failure to address the employee's concerns was reasonable just cause to quit, under unemployment compensation law, focuses on the conduct of the employee, not the employer.

C.A.R. 21.1— Certified Questions of State Law—Colorado Wage Claim Act—Statute of Limitations—Statutory Construction. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21.1 to answer a certified question of law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado regarding how far back in time a terminated employee's unpaid wage claims can reach under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, CRS §§ 8-4-101 to -123. The Court held that, under the plain language of CRS § 8-4-109, a terminated employee may seek any wages or compensation that were unpaid at the time of termination however, the right to seek such wages or compensation is subject to the statute of limitations found in CRS § 8-4-122. That statute of limitations begins to run when the wages or compensation first become due and payable and thus limits a terminated employee to claims for the two years (three for willful violations) immediately preceding termination.

Employment termination