Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (2026)

Wage discrimination prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) An employer shall not discriminate between employees on the basis of sex, or on the basis of sex in combination with another protected status as described in section 24-34-402 (1)(a), by paying an employee of one sex a wage rate less than the rate paid to an employee of a different sex for substantially similar work, regardless of job title, based on a composite of skill; effort, which may include consideration of shift work; and responsibility, except where the employer demonstrates each of the following:

(a) That the wage rate differential is based on:

(I) A seniority system;

(II) A merit system;

(III) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;

(IV) The geographic location where the work is performed;

(V) Education, training, or experience to the extent that they are reasonably related to the work in question; or

(VI) Travel, if the travel is a regular and necessary condition of the work performed;

(b) That each factor relied on in subsection (1)(a) of this section is applied reasonably;

(c) That each factor relied on in subsection (1)(a) of this section accounts for the entire wage rate differential; and

(d) That prior wage rate history was not relied on to justify a disparity in current wage rates.

(2) An employer shall not:

(a) Seek the wage rate history of a prospective employee or rely on the wage rate history of a prospective employee to determine a wage rate;

(b) Discriminate or retaliate against a prospective employee for failing to disclose the prospective employee's wage rate history;

(c) Discharge, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against, an employee for invoking this section on behalf of anyone or assisting in the enforcement of this subsection (2);

(d) Discharge, discipline, discriminate against, coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with an employee or other person because the employee or person inquired about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the employee's wage rate;

(e) Prohibit, as a condition of employment, an employee from disclosing the employee's wage rate; or

(f) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that:

(I) Prohibits the employee from disclosing wage rate information; or

(II) Purports to deny the employee the right to disclose the employee's wage rate information.

Source: L. 55: p. 503, § 2. CRS 53: § 80-23-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 80-3-2. L. 2019: Entire section amended, (SB 19-085), ch. 247, p. 2413, § 4, effective January 1, 2021.

Cross references: (1) For minimum wages for workers, see article 6 of this title 8.

(2) For the short title ("Equal Pay for Equal Work Act") and the legislative declaration in SB 19-085, see sections 1 and 2 of chapter 247, Session Laws of Colorado 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2022–2026 · leading case: Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024). “33 True, three state equal-pay statutes -- Idaho's, South Dakota's, and Kentucky's -- share the textual features that combine to create the ambiguity in the MEPL that concerns me: the use of the words "discriminate .”
Prkic (D. Colo. 2026). · cites it 15× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (1) (emphasis added).”
Weiss (D. Colo. 2026). · cites it 13× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (2)(d). Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Claim Six for the same reasons that they are entitled to summary judgment on Claims Four and Five.”
Prkic v. Sezzle Inc. (D. Colo. 2025). · cites it 5× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (1) (emphasis added).”
Rmsm Ltd., f/k/a Rotating Mech. Solutions Corp., Ryan Mcguire, Scott Mcguire v. Indus. Serv. Solutions, LLC (D. Colo. 2026). · cites it 4× “Finally, Plaintiffs’ claim 8 alleges violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (2)(d), which provides “[a]n employer shall not [d]ischarge, discipline, discriminate against, coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with an employee or other person because the employee or person…”
Cooper v. Colorado Dep't of Corr. (D. Colo. 2022). · cites it 2× “See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 . Defendant cites no authority discussing or establishing whether Colorado has waived its sovereign immunity in the context of the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, see [Doc.”
Schott v. Univ. of Denver (D. Colo. 2023). · cites it 2× “# 68 at 23) (quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 ). Defendants then point to comparison evidence of compensation paid to other female professors at DU and argue that Mr.”
Prkic v. Sezzle Inc. (D. Colo. 2025). · cites it 2× “at 13 (quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (1)). Judge Neureiter notes that EPEWA was passed in 2021 and that Colorado courts have not had occasion to apply the act.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102(2): 1 case
Prkic (D. Colo. 2026). “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (1) (emphasis added).”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102(2)(d): 4 cases
Prkic (D. Colo. 2026). “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (1) (emphasis added).”
Weiss (D. Colo. 2026). “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (2)(d). Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Claim Six for the same reasons that they are entitled to summary judgment on Claims Four and Five.”
Prkic v. Sezzle Inc. (D. Colo. 2025). “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (1) (emphasis added).”
Rmsm Ltd., f/k/a Rotating Mech. Solutions Corp., Ryan Mcguire, Scott Mcguire v. Indus. Serv. Solutions, LLC (D. Colo. 2026). “Finally, Plaintiffs’ claim 8 alleges violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (2)(d), which provides “[a]n employer shall not [d]ischarge, discipline, discriminate against, coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with an employee or other person because the employee or person…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102(2)(f): 1 case
Weiss (D. Colo. 2026). “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-102 (2)(d). Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Claim Six for the same reasons that they are entitled to summary judgment on Claims Four and Five.”
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.