14 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenzgreen2 sentences2026Martin Marietta , 823 P.2d at 109; Mariani , 916 P.2d at 527. ¶75 Specifically, an at-will employee has a prima facie case for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception if the employee presents evidence that the employer's action interfered with or undermined the employee's job-related right or privilege as a worker by establishing the following four elements: (1) the employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the employee's work related duties or prohibited the employee from performing a public duty or exercising an important job-related right or privilege 2026Martin Marietta , 823 P.2d at 109 (emphases added). ¶76 Our test plainly focuses on the infringement of an employee's job-related right or privilege as a worker . | 6 | 14 |
Lathrop v. ENTERNMANN'S, INC.green2 sentences2006Second, the QM. statute does not clearly articulate a public policy by creating “an important job-related right or privilege.” See, e.g., Lorenz, supra, 823 P.2d at 109 ; Hoyt v. Target Stores, 981 P.2d 188, 191 (Colo.App.1998) (“job-related rights to be paid for travel time from store to store” protected by the Colorado Wage Claim Act); Lathrop, supra (right to file workers’ compensation claim). 1999See CJI-Civ. 4th 31:10 (1998); see also Lathrop v. Entenmann’s, Inc., 770 P.2d 1367 (Colo.App.1989). | 1 | 3 |
Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service v. Marianigreen2 sentences2026Martin Marietta , 823 P.2d at 109; Mariani , 916 P.2d at 527. ¶75 Specifically, an at-will employee has a prima facie case for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception if the employee presents evidence that the employer's action interfered with or undermined the employee's job-related right or privilege as a worker by establishing the following four elements: (1) the employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the employee's work related duties or prohibited the employee from performing a public duty or exercising an important job-related right or privilege 2026Martin Marietta , 823 P.2d at 109 ; Mariani , 916 P.2d at 527 . ¶75 Specifically, an at-will employee has a prima facie case for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception if the employee presents evidence that the employer's action interfered with or undermined the employee's job-related right or privilege as a worker by establishing the following four elements: (1) the employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the employee's work related duties or prohibited the employee from performing a public duty or exercising an important job-related right or privileg | 1 | 1 |
Hoyt v. Target Stores, Division of Dayton Hudson Corp.green1 sentence2006Second, the QM. statute does not clearly articulate a public policy by creating “an important job-related right or privilege.” See, e.g., Lorenz, supra, 823 P.2d at 109 ; Hoyt v. Target Stores, 981 P.2d 188, 191 (Colo.App.1998) (“job-related rights to be paid for travel time from store to store” protected by the Colorado Wage Claim Act); Lathrop, supra (right to file workers’ compensation claim). | 1 | 1 |
Coors Brewing Co. v. Floydgreen1 sentence2003See Coors Brewing Co. v. Floyd, 978 P.2d 663 (Colo.1999); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Semental v. Denver County Court, Small Claims Divisiongreen1 sentence2003See Coors Brewing Co. v. Floyd, 978 P.2d 668 (Colo.1999); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Loreng, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Weissmangreen2 sentences1999See Crawford Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540 (Colo.1997); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992) (employee should not have to choose between violating the law or losing his or her job). *1240 As pertinent here, a plaintiff seeking to assert a claim based on retaliatory discharge for exercising a job-related right must show that: 1) the plaintiff was employed by the defendant; 2) the defendant discharged the plaintiff; and 3) the plaintiff was discharged for exercising a job-related right or privilege to which he or she was entitled. 1999See Crawford Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540 (Colo.1997); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992) (employee should not have to choose between violating the law or losing his or her job). *1240 As pertinent here, a plaintiff seeking to assert a claim based on retaliatory discharge for exercising a job-related right must show that: 1) the plaintiff was employed by the defendant; 2) the defendant discharged the plaintiff; and 3) the plaintiff was discharged for exercising a job-related right or privilege to which he or she was entitled. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lampe v. Presbyterian Med. Center
green
2 sentences2006In contrast, in Lampe v. Presbyterian Medical Center, 41 Colo.App. 465 , 590 P.2d 513 (1978), the division declined to recognize a sufficiently clear expression of public policy, although the statute at issue, § 12-38.1-101, C.R.S.2005 (formerly codified at § 12-38-201), stated that a regulatory authority governing nurse aides was necessary “in order to safeguard life, health, property, and the public welfare of the people of the state of Colorado.” After discussing Nees v. Hocks, supra, and Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., supra, the division concluded that the statute did not create a “s 2006In contrast, in Lampe v. Presbyterian Medical Center, 41 Colo.App. 465 , 590 P.2d 513 (1978), the division declined to recognize a sufficiently clear expression of public policy, although the statute at issue, § 12-38.1-101, C.R.S.2005 (formerly codified at § 12-38-201), stated that a regulatory authority governing nurse aides was necessary “in order to safeguard life, health, property, and the public welfare of the people of the state of Colorado.” After discussing Nees v. Hocks, supra, and Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., supra, the division concluded that the statute did not create a “s | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Johnson v. Regional Transportation District
green
1 sentence1999Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service v. Mariani, supra. A. In its opening brief, defendant asserts that, in order to prevail, plaintiff must prove under Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo.1992) that: (1) [defendant] directed [her] to perform an illegal act as part of her work-related duties or prohibited her from performing a public duty or exercising an important job-related right or privilege; (2) the action directed by [defendant] would violate a specific statute relating to the public health, safety, or welfare, or would undermine a clearly expressed public policy rel | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.