It is unlawful for any
person, company, corporation, society, association, or organization of any kind doing business in
this state, by itself or its agents or attorneys, to induce, influence, persuade, or engage workmen
to change from one place of employment to another in this state, or to bring workmen of any
class or calling into this state to work in any of the departments of labor in this state, through or
by means of false or deceptive representations, false advertising, or false pretenses concerning
the kind and character of the work to be done, or amount and character of the compensation to be
paid for such work, or the sanitary or other conditions of the employment, or as to the existence
or nonexistence of a strike or lockout pending between employer and employees, or failure to
state in any advertisement, proposal, or contract for the employment that there is a strike,
lockout, or other labor trouble at the place of the proposed employment, when in fact such strike,
lockout, or other labor trouble then actually exists at such place, and it is deemed false
advertisement and misrepresentation for the purposes of sections 8-2-104 to 8-2-107.
Source: L. 11: p. 486, § 1. C.L. § 4156. CSA: C. 97, § 71. CRS 53: § 80-4-4. C.R.S.
1963: § 80-11-4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case:
Nelson v. Gas Rsch. Inst., 121 P.3d 340 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
Nelson v. Gas Rsch. Inst., 121 P.3d 340 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 14× “Subsequently, as relevant to this appeal, Nelson filed this lawsuit asserting claims based on statutory fraud under § 8-2-104, C.R.S.2004, and negligent misrepresentation.”
Pittman v. Larson Distrib. Co., 724 P.2d 1379 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Section 8-2-105, C.R.S., makes violation of § 8-2-104 a misdemean- or punishable by fine and imprisonment, and § 8-2-107 gives employees a private right of action for a violation of § 8-2-104.”
Schur v. Storage Tech. Corp., 878 P.2d 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 5× “His complaint relied upon two principal legal theories, breach of his employment contract and fraudulent nondisclosure (both under the common law and under §§ 8-2-104 and 8-2-107, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.”
Wisehart v. Meganck, 66 P.3d 124 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “See § 8-2-104, C.R.S. 2001 (remedy for employees fraudulently induced to come to Colorado for work).”
DeJean v. United Airlines, Inc., 839 P.2d 1153 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 5× “(1986), and prohibiting coercion of employees by discharge or threatened discharge if the employees join or become connected with a labor organization, § 8-2-102, 3B C.R.S. (1986). We do not agree that these statutory provisions required United to hire the Group members.”
Roberts v. Conoco, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 724 (D. Colo. 1989).
· cites it 9× “of employment to another in this state, or to bring workmen of any class or calling into this state to work in any of the departments of labor in this state, through or by means of false or deceptive representations, false advertising, or false pretenses concerning the kind and…”
Snyder v. Beam Tech., Inc (D. Colo. 2023).
· cites it 25× “§ 7-74-101 (“CUTSA”) (“Claim Two”); (3) a claim for obtaining workmen by misrepresentation under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-104 (“Claim Three”); (4) fraudulent misrepresentation (“Claim Four”); and (5) promissory estoppel (“Claim Five”).”
Snyder v. Beam Tech., Inc (D. Colo. 2023).
· cites it 5× “” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-104 . Section 8-2-107 creates a private cause of action to challenge such conduct, permitting “recovery of all damages that each such workman has sustained in consequence of the false or deceptive representations, false advertising, and false pretenses.”
Snyder v. Beam Tech., Inc (D. Colo. 2023).
· cites it 2× “§ 7-74-101 ; (3) a claim for obtaining workmen by misrepresentation under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-104 ; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) promissory estoppel, [Doc.”
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.