(1) The general assembly declares that the people of Colorado are entitled to information about the workings of state government in order to reduce the waste and mismanagement of public funds, to reduce abuses in government authority, and to prevent illegal and unethical practices. The general assembly further declares that employees of the state of Colorado are citizens first and have a right and a responsibility to behave as good citizens in our common efforts to provide sound management of governmental affairs. To help achieve these objectives, the general assembly declares that state employees should be encouraged to disclose information on actions of state agencies that are not in the public interest and that legislation is needed to ensure that any employee making such disclosures shall not be subject to disciplinary measures or harassment by any public official.
(2) Repealed.
Source: L. 79: Entire article added, p. 965, § 1, effective June 15. L. 2016: Entire section amended, (SB 16-056), ch. 294, p. 1194, § 1, effective June 10.
Editor's note: Subsection (2)(b) provided for the repeal of subsection (2), effective May 15, 2018. (See L. 2016, p. 1194.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
· cites it 2× “(2001); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-50.5-101 et seq. (2004); Iowa Code § 70A.”
State Pers. Bd. v. Lloyd, 752 P.2d 559 (Colo. 1988).
· cites it 10× “Unlike the Employee Protection Act, the Immunity Act specifically provides for a statute of limitations, see sections 24-10-109(5), -118(1)(a); the availability of insurance, see section 24-10-115; the payment of judgments in general, see section 24-10-113, and against public…”
Ferrel v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., 179 P.3d 178 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “) The disclosure of information must be “regarding any action, policy, regulation, practice, or procedure, including, but not limited to, the waste of public funds, abuse of authority, or mismanagement of any state agency.”
Lanes v. O'BRIEN, 746 P.2d 1366 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “” Section 24-50.5-101, C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol.”
Ward v. Indus. Comm'n, 699 P.2d 960 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 3× “In his reply brief, Ward also contended that the DOH’s opposition to his unemployment claim violated the policy of Colorado’s “whistle-blower” statute, §§ 24-50.5-101 to -107, 10 C.R.S. (1982), which protects state employees from disciplinary measures or harassment by their…”
Gansert v. Colorado, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Colo. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Adkins violated her rights of free expression under the First Amendment and violated the Colorado State Employee Protection Act, C.R.S. § 24-50.5-101, et seq. (sometimes referred to as the “Whistleblower Act”).”
Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, 179 P.3d 246 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Taylor alleged that the actions of Ambron and the University in denying him a raise constituted retaliatory conduct in violation of the Colorado Whistleblower Act, sections 24-50.5-101 to -107, C.R.S.2006.”
Clark-Wine v. City of Colorado Springs, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (D. Colo. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Second, plaintiff alleges that her termination for making the disclosures of information referenced in the complaint violates the Colorado State Employee Protection Act (Whistleblower Act), C.R.S. § 24-50.5-101, et seq. As a third claim, wholly dependent on her first, plaintiff…”
Lloyd v. State Pers. Bd., 710 P.2d 1177 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
“Lloyd alleged three causes of action in his complaint: a violation of § 24-50.5-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1982 Repl.”
Lanes v. State Auditor's Off., 797 P.2d 764 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
“1987), the State Personnel Board determined the award due petitioner, George Lanes, for termination of his employment by the State Auditor’s office in violation of the Whistle-blower Act, § 24-50.5-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1988 Repl.”
Hewlett v. Colorado Div. of Emp. & Training, 753 P.2d 791 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“And, we conclude that where such a “dual motive” issue is presented, the burden of proof between the parties must be allocated, and the evidence must be considered, in the manner described in Ward v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-50.5-101(1) — 3 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.