An applicant or employee who alleges
discriminatory or unfair employment practices, as defined in part 4 of article 34 of this title, in
the state personnel system may appeal within ten days of the alleged practice by filing a
complaint in writing with the board or the Colorado civil rights division in the department of
regulatory agencies, which shall investigate such complaint on behalf of the board pursuant to
the procedures and time limits set forth in section 24-34-306. In an appeal involving the civil
rights division, the state personnel board shall contract with a third party to investigate the
complaint. If, after said civil rights division or third party has found no probable cause or has
attempted after a finding of probable cause to resolve the complaint by conference, conciliation,
and persuasion, the applicant or employee remains dissatisfied, such person shall have ten days
from the date he is notified of the civil rights division's or third party's action in which to appeal
to the board. The board may set the complaint for hearing or adopt the findings of the civil rights
division or third party as its own. If the complaint is set for hearing, it shall be subject to the
same time limits as other appeals heard by the board. If the board adopts a no probable cause
finding as its own, such action shall not operate to deny an employee a hearing to which he is
otherwise entitled by law or rule.
Source: L. 84: Entire section added, p. 712, § 11, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Williams v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2015 COA 180, 369 P.3d 760.
· cites it 28× “But its power to review nonemployee appointment decisions arises from a single statute: section 24-50-125.3, C.R.S. 2015 (â[a]n applicant or employeeâ).”
Ward v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 216 P.3d 84 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “Appeal Section 24-50-125.3, C.R.S.2007, governs appeals of discriminatory or unfair employment practices in the state personnel system.”
Williams v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., 926 P.2d 110 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Based on these findings, the Division initiated conciliation efforts, pursuant to §§ 24-50-125.3, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B) and 24-34-306, C.”
Renteria v. Colorado State Dep't of Pers., 811 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 2× “An employee was not notified as required by the Board rule that he could appeal to the Board regarding his claim of discrimination in an examination procedure pursuant to section 24-50-125.3, 10B C.R.S. (1988). Instead, his appeal was directed to the Director who subsequently…”
Cunningham v. Dep't of Highways, 823 P.2d 1377 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “On the other hand, § 24-50-125.3, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B) governs all allegations by state employees of racial discrimination in employment, as described in § 24-34-402(l)(a), C.”
Strumpf v. Dept of Corr. (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 7× “2008) (“[A]ny date when the [agency] engaged in the discriminatory practice was too difficult to discern for purposes of” section 24-50-125.3’s deadline.). ¶ 12 We next consider the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board lacked authority to review Strumpf’s complaint because the Board…”
Russell v. Dept of Local Affairs (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “Under section 24-50-125.3, C.R.S. 2025, Russell was required to file her discrimination claim within ten days of the alleged discriminatory practice.”
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.