(1) The general assembly declares that it is the
policy of the state:
(a) To encourage and enable individuals who are visually or hearing impaired or
individuals with a disability to participate fully in social, employment, and educational
opportunities, as well as other activities in our state on the same terms and conditions as
individuals without a disability;
(b) That individuals who are visually or hearing impaired or individuals with a disability
have the same rights as individuals without a disability to the full and free use of the streets,
highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public facilities, and other public places;
(c) That individuals who are visually or hearing impaired or individuals with a disability
are entitled to full and equal housing accommodations, facilities, and privileges of all common
carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, trains, motor buses, streetcars, boats, or any other public
conveyances or modes of transportation, hotels, motels, lodging places, places of public
accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited,
including restaurants and grocery stores; and
(d) That individuals who are visually or hearing impaired or individuals with a disability
must not be excluded, by reason of his or her disability, from participation in or be denied the
benefits of the services, programs, or activities of any public entity or be subject to
discrimination by any public entity.
(2) Repealed.
Source: L. 79: Entire part R&RE, p. 939, § 3, effective July 1. L. 86: (1)(e) and (1)(f)
amended and (2) added, p. 934, § 1, effective March 20. L. 89: (1)(e) amended, p. 1045, § 1,
effective April 19. L. 93: (1)(a) to (1)(d) amended, p. 1663, § 68, effective July 1. L. 95: (1)(e),
(1)(f), and (2) repealed, p. 321, § 1, effective August 7. L. 2014: (1) R&RE, (SB 14-118), ch.
250, p. 979, § 10, effective August 6.
Cross references: For provisions that a blind or physically disabled person accompanied
by a guide dog or service dog not be denied the facilities of a common carrier, see § 40-9-109;
for provision that drivers and pedestrians yield to handicapped person, see § 42-4-808.
Notes of Decisions
Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, 559 P.2d 716 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 7× “" Section 24-34-801, C.R.S.1973. Plaintiff concedes that this 1971 enactment does not expressly provide for civil actions for compensatory or exemplary damages.”
Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n v. North Washington Fire Prot. Dist., 772 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 4× “If the employer presents credible evidence that reasonable accommodation would not be possible, the applicant must go forward with evidence of his or her individual capabilities as well as suggestions for possible accommodation. The ultimate burden of persuasion as to reasonable…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Moreland, 764 P.2d 812 (Colo. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The statute did not expressly provide for a private right of action but did provide a criminal penalty for violation of the statute. In rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that a private right of action should be implied, the court held: The relevant portions of that statute…”
Atlantis Cmty., Inc. v. Adams, 453 F. Supp. 825 (D. Colo. 1978).
“1973, § 24-34-801. *827 Essentially the plaintiffs contend that the use of federal financial assistance to purchase buses which do not have hydraulic lifts and wheelchair securing devices available within present technology result in a denial of statutory entitlement to mainline…”
Maine Human Rights Com'n, Etc. v. Canadian Pac., 458 A.2d 1225 (Me. 1983).
“After his rejection for permanent employment in 1976, however, Lyford personally called CPL's Medical Services office to inquire about employment that summer.”
Ozborn v. Colorado Supreme Court (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “2023;3 § 24-34-801, C.R.S. 2025. Three days later, Ozborn filed a motion for preliminary injunction under C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-801(1)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-801(1)(b) — 3 cases
Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, 559 P.2d 716 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976).
“" Section 24-34-801, C.R.S.1973. Plaintiff concedes that this 1971 enactment does not expressly provide for civil actions for compensatory or exemplary damages.”
Maine Human Rights Com'n, Etc. v. Canadian Pac., 458 A.2d 1225 (Me. 1983).
“After his rejection for permanent employment in 1976, however, Lyford personally called CPL's Medical Services office to inquire about employment that summer.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-801(l)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-801(l)(b) — 4 cases
Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n v. North Washington Fire Prot. Dist., 772 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1989).
“If the employer presents credible evidence that reasonable accommodation would not be possible, the applicant must go forward with evidence of his or her individual capabilities as well as suggestions for possible accommodation. The ultimate burden of persuasion as to reasonable…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Moreland, 764 P.2d 812 (Colo. 1988).
“The statute did not expressly provide for a private right of action but did provide a criminal penalty for violation of the statute. In rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that a private right of action should be implied, the court held: The relevant portions of that statute…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-801(lXa) — 1 case
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.