Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 24
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-403 (2026)

Time limits on filing of charges

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any charge alleging a violation of this part 4 must be filed with the commission pursuant to section 24-34-306 within three hundred days after the alleged discriminatory or unfair employment practice occurred, and if a charge is not timely filed, it is barred.

Source: L. 79: Entire part R&RE, p. 931, § 3, effective July 1. L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 1041, § 7, effective July 1. L. 2022: Entire section amended, (HB 22-1367), ch. 473, p. 3456, § 5, effective August 10.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in HB 22-1367, see section 1 of chapter 473, Session Laws of Colorado 2022.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 4× “Section 24-34-403 of the statutory scheme states that any claim must be filed with the Civil Rights Commission "within six months after the alleged discriminatory or unfair employment practice occurred.”
Quicker v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 747 P.2d 682 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 9× “Statute of Repose Section 24-34-403, C.R.S., mandates that claims such as this must be filed “within six months after the alleged discriminatory or unfair employment practice occurred.”
Galvan v. Spanish Peaks Reg'l Health Ctr., 98 P.3d 949 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “5 should be dismissed because it was barred by the six-month limitations period set forth in § 24-34-403, C.R.S.2003. The trial court subsequently granted plaintiff's request for C.”
Brooke v. Restaurant Servs., Inc., 906 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1995). “See § 24-34-403, 10A C.R.S. (1994 Supp.) Instead, they have as long as three years to file a civil action.”
Shepherd v. United States Olympic Comm., 94 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D. Colo. 2000). · cites it 2× “Colo.Rev. Stat. § 24-34-403 (1999). Shepherd alleges he filed the discrimination charge with the EEOC within eighty days of the alleged discrimination.”
Conners v. City of Colorado Springs, 962 P.2d 294 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Section 24-34-403, C.R.S.1997. Upon receipt of the charge, the director of the civil rights division must investigate its allegations to determine whether probable cause exists for crediting them.”
Lorenz v. Martin Marietta Corp., Inc., 802 P.2d 1146 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The statute in Quicker , § 24-34-403, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A), states that: “Any charge .”
Cruz v. Bd. of Ed. for City of Trinidad Sch. Dist., 537 F. Supp. 292 (D. Colo. 1982). “§ 24-34-307(15) (1973) recodified in 1979 as § 24-34-403 (1981 Cum.Supp.), are time-barred, regardless of whether they were filed with the EEOC within the 300-day extended filing period provided in § 2000e-5(e).”
Slater v. King Soopers, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 809 (D. Colo. 1992). · cites it 2× “That claim may be barred, however, by the time limitations set forth in Colo.Rev.Stat. § 24-34-403. Regardless, because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under federal law, to the extent the complaint can be interpreted to state a claim under § 24-34-402.”
Robyn v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 774 F. Supp. 587 (D. Colo. 1991). “§ 24-34-403 (Supp.1990). 1 Phillips alleges that Robyn’s claims under the Act are untimely because they are based on events which occurred between May 1980 and April 1986, but her separate complaint for religious discrimination was not filed until November 30, 1987, more than…”
Galieti v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 840 F. Supp. 104 (D. Colo. 1993). · cites it 6× “Defendants further argue that even if I determine that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required, plaintiffs action is still barred by the statute of limitations contained in § 24-34-403. Section 24-34-403 provides that any charge alleging a violation of Part 4…”
Kennedy v. Colorado RS, LLC, 872 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (2012). · cites it 3× “Whether Dismissal is Appropriate as to Kennedy’s Fourth Claim for Violation of ERISA Riverstone contends that Kennedy’s ERISA 510 claim is barred by the sixth-month statute of limitations set forth in Colo.Rev.Stat. § 24-34-403. Riverstone argues that the Tenth Circuit’s…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.