(1) It is unlawful for any employer, as defined in subsection (2) of this section, to require any employee or applicant for employment to pay the cost of a medical examination or the cost of furnishing any records required by the employer as a condition of employment, except those records necessary to support the applicant's statements in the application for employment.
(2) "Employer", as used in this section, means an individual, a partnership, an association, a corporation, a legal representative, trustee, receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, and any common carrier by rail, motor, water, air, or express company doing business in or operating within the state.
(3) "Employee", as used in this section, means every person who may be permitted, required, or directed by any employer, as defined in subsection (2) of this section, in consideration of direct or indirect gain or profit, to engage in any employment.
(4) Any employer who violates the provisions of this section is liable to a penalty of not more than one hundred dollars for each violation. It is the duty of the director of the division of labor standards and statistics to enforce this section.
(5) (a) The director of the division of labor standards and statistics shall enforce this section as it applies to an individual, a partnership, an association, a corporation, or a legal representative, trustee, receiver, or trustee in bankruptcy doing business in or operating within the state.
(b) The public utilities commission shall enforce this section as it applies to any common carrier by rail, motor, water, air, or express company doing business in or operating within the state.
(c) Nothing in this subsection (5) shall be construed as applying to irrigation ditch and water companies.
Source: L. 57: p. 491, §§ 1-4. CRS 53: § 80-4-18. L. 59: p. 536, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 80- 11-18. L. 69: p. 615, § 123. L. 2016: (4) and (5)(a) amended, (HB 16-1323), ch. 131, p. 377, § 6, effective August 10.
Notes of Decisions
DISH Network Corp. v. Altomari, 224 P.3d 362 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 14× “Because we conclude the trial court erred in concluding Altomari was not "management personnel" within the meaning of an exception to Colorado's statute voiding covenants not to compete, section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S. 2008, we reverse and remand.”
Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “Reasonableness in Connection with Sale Reed Mill contends that although the trial court correctly concluded that Jensen's non-compete agreement was made in connection with the purchase agreement, it erred when it concluded that the duration of the agreement was unreasonable.”
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “Colorado's statutory approach to agreements not to compete is codified at section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S.2010, which provides: Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer…”
Atmel Corp. v. Vitesee Semiconductor Corp., 30 P.3d 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S.2000 provides: "Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void.”
Keller Corp. v. Kelley, 187 P.3d 1133 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “) The provisions of section 8-2-118(2) have limited the use of a covenant not to compete to the extent that such a covenant would restrict "the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-118(2) — 5 cases
DISH Network Corp. v. Altomari, 224 P.3d 362 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Because we conclude the trial court erred in concluding Altomari was not "management personnel" within the meaning of an exception to Colorado's statute voiding covenants not to compete, section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S. 2008, we reverse and remand.”
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Colorado's statutory approach to agreements not to compete is codified at section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S.2010, which provides: Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer…”
Atmel Corp. v. Vitesee Semiconductor Corp., 30 P.3d 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S.2000 provides: "Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void.”
Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Reasonableness in Connection with Sale Reed Mill contends that although the trial court correctly concluded that Jensen's non-compete agreement was made in connection with the purchase agreement, it erred when it concluded that the duration of the agreement was unreasonable.”
Keller Corp. v. Kelley, 187 P.3d 1133 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“) The provisions of section 8-2-118(2) have limited the use of a covenant not to compete to the extent that such a covenant would restrict "the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-118(2)(a) — 2 cases
Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Reasonableness in Connection with Sale Reed Mill contends that although the trial court correctly concluded that Jensen's non-compete agreement was made in connection with the purchase agreement, it erred when it concluded that the duration of the agreement was unreasonable.”
Keller Corp. v. Kelley, 187 P.3d 1133 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“) The provisions of section 8-2-118(2) have limited the use of a covenant not to compete to the extent that such a covenant would restrict "the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-118(2)(b) — 3 cases
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Colorado's statutory approach to agreements not to compete is codified at section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S.2010, which provides: Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer…”
DISH Network Corp. v. Altomari, 224 P.3d 362 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Because we conclude the trial court erred in concluding Altomari was not "management personnel" within the meaning of an exception to Colorado's statute voiding covenants not to compete, section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S. 2008, we reverse and remand.”
Keller Corp. v. Kelley, 187 P.3d 1133 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“) The provisions of section 8-2-118(2) have limited the use of a covenant not to compete to the extent that such a covenant would restrict "the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-118(2)(d) — 3 cases
DISH Network Corp. v. Altomari, 224 P.3d 362 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Because we conclude the trial court erred in concluding Altomari was not "management personnel" within the meaning of an exception to Colorado's statute voiding covenants not to compete, section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S. 2008, we reverse and remand.”
Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Reasonableness in Connection with Sale Reed Mill contends that although the trial court correctly concluded that Jensen's non-compete agreement was made in connection with the purchase agreement, it erred when it concluded that the duration of the agreement was unreasonable.”
Atmel Corp. v. Vitesee Semiconductor Corp., 30 P.3d 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Section 8-2-118(2), C.R.S.2000 provides: "Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void.”
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.