Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110 (2026)

Other remuneration - severance pay - definitions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) (a) The benefits for an individual who is separated from employment and receives a severance allowance must be postponed for a number of calendar weeks after separation from employment that is equal to the total amount of the severance allowance, divided by the individual's usual weekly wage. The postponement required by this subsection (1) begins with the calendar week in which the severance allowance was received. If the number of weeks does not equal a whole number, the remainder is disregarded. Notwithstanding section 8-73-107 (1)(f), any wages earned by an individual in a calendar week during postponement are disregarded.

(b) For purposes of this subsection (1), "individual's weekly wage" means an individual's usual or average wage earned in a representative number of calendar weeks.

(1.2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1076), ch. 408, p. 2248, § 1, effective June 2, 2009.)

(1.5) Repealed.

(1.6) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1076), ch. 408, p. 2248, § 1, effective June 2, 2009.)

(2) An individual who has an award for any week and for which week he, at a subsequent date, received a pay award by reason of a decision of the national labor relations board or other source, as a result of the action taken by the national labor relations board or other source, shall immediately repay to the division such amounts as will reimburse the division for all benefit payments made for the period during which he drew benefits and for which the national labor relations board or other source has caused a payment to be made in the form of back pay award to the claimant; and the employer's account charged for such benefits shall be credited accordingly.

(3) (a) (I) Except as provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), an individual's weekly benefit amount shall be reduced (but not below zero) by:

(A) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1076), ch. 408, p. 2248, § 1, effective June 2, 2009.)

(B) The prorated weekly amount of a pension, retirement or retired pay, or annuity that has been contributed to by a base period employer; or

(C) The prorated weekly amount of any other similar periodic or lump-sum retirement payment from a plan, fund, or trust which has been contributed to by a base period employer.

(II) An individual's weekly benefit amount shall not be reduced when an individual receives a lump-sum retirement payment from a plan, fund, or trust that has been contributed to by a base period employer when all of the following conditions are met:

(A) The individual's separation from the employer awarding the payment is not due to a retirement pursuant to section 8-73-108 (4)(m) or (5)(e)(XXIII);

(B) The individual presents proof to the division within fourteen calendar days from date of claim or sixty calendar days of receipt of such lump-sum payment, whichever is later, that this total payment has been reinvested into an individual retirement account or Keogh plan, as defined in 26 U.S.C. sec. 408 or 26 U.S.C. sec. 401, and such proof establishes that the investment is for a duration of at least one year; except that such lump-sum retirement payment shall not be considered to be received by the individual until the entire balance has been so received. Should a portion of the payment be ineligible for reinvestment and the claimant presents proof that the total eligible portion has been reinvested, only the remaining uninvested portion will be prorated in accordance with subparagraph (III) of this paragraph (a).

(III) When an individual receives a lump-sum retirement payment from a plan, fund, or trust that has been contributed to by a base period employer and the payment does not meet all of the criteria established in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), then the division shall postpone the individual's benefits for a number of calendar weeks equal to the gross amount of the lump- sum payment divided by the individual's full-time weekly wage. However, when an individual receives a lump-sum retirement payment from a plan, fund, or trust as described in this subparagraph (III), but only reinvests a portion of that payment as required in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), or when an individual otherwise withdraws an amount from a plan, fund, or trust that is less than the total lump sum of the account, then the division shall consider only the portion that is received but not reinvested pursuant to subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a) in determining the number of calendar weeks that the individual's benefits are postponed.

(IV) An individual's weekly benefit amount shall not be reduced by any amount of a primary insurance benefit under Title II of the federal "Social Security Act" that has been contributed to by a base period employer if the employee has made contributions to federal social security.

(b) (I) An individual who has applied for a retirement payment shall be entitled to receive, if otherwise eligible, the weekly benefit amount reduced by the prorated weekly amount of the estimated or reported amount of such retirement payment. When notice of the actual or confirmed amount of the retirement payment is received by the individual, he shall advise the division and the deduction will be adjusted accordingly.

(II) If the estimated amount of the retirement payment exceeds the amount of unemployment compensation to which the individual is entitled, he shall receive one payment equal to the minimum weekly benefit amount, as prescribed by section 8-73-102 (1), other provisions of articles 70 to 82 of this title notwithstanding.

(c) For purposes of this subsection (3), "lump-sum retirement payment" means the entire balance due the individual from the plan, fund, or trust that has been contributed to by a base period employer.

(4) An individual's weekly benefit amount shall not be reduced because of the receipt of military service-connected disability compensation payable under 38 U.S.C., chapter 11, by the federal veterans administration. An individual's weekly benefit amount shall be reduced because of the receipt of a military disability retirement pension based on previous work performed by the individual, the relationship to the level of prior remuneration, or the length of service.

(5) Individuals who receive compensation for temporary disability under the workers' compensation law of any state or under a similar law of the United States shall be entitled to receive benefits for a corresponding week, if otherwise eligible, reduced by the amount of the temporary disability compensation unless the temporary disability amount has already been reduced by the unemployment insurance benefit amount.

(6) Individuals who receive sick pay benefits or other similar periodic cash payments paid to the worker by a base period employer or from any trust or fund contributed to by a base period employer shall be entitled to receive benefits for a corresponding week, if otherwise eligible, reduced by the amount of such sick pay benefits or other similar periodic cash payments.

(7) Repealed.

(8) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1076), ch. 408, p. 2248, § 1, effective June 2, 2009.) Source: L. 36, 3rd Ex. Sess.: p. 19, § 5. L. 37: p. 1255, § 3. CSA: C. 167A, § 5. L. 41: p. 766, § 5. L. 49: p. 722, § 3. L. 53: p. 624, § 5. CRS 53: § 82-4-12. L. 55: p. 533, § 2. L. 57: p. 518, § 6. L. 59: p. 564, § 6. L. 63: p. 679, § 6. C.R.S. 1963: § 82-4-10. L. 65: p. 843, § 6. L. 69: p. 671, § 6. L. 72: p. 450, § 1. L. 76: (4) and (5) amended, p. 348, § 13, effective October 1. L. 79: (3)(a)(I) amended, p. 351, § 13, effective September 30. L. 81: (3), (4), and (5) R&RE and

(6) added, pp. 511, 512, §§ 2, 3, effective July 1. L. 83: (7) added, p. 430, § 4, effective June 3. L. 84: (1)(c) amended, p. 323, § 3, effective July 1. L. 85: (3)(a) amended, p. 368, § 5, effective July 1. L. 86: (1)(c) repealed, p. 547, § 12, effective May 28; IP(1), (3)(a), and (6) amended and (1.5) and (8) added, p. 543, § 7, effective July 1. L. 86, 2nd Ex. Sess.: IP(1) and (1.5) amended,

(1)(c) RC&RE, and (1.2) and (1.6) added, p. 55, §§ 2, 1, effective August 15; (1.5) repealed, p. 55, § 2, effective September 1, 1986. L. 87: (3)(a) amended, p. 410, § 1, effective April 16. L. 88: (5) amended, p. 389, § 2, effective June 11. L. 90: (3)(a)(II)(B) amended and (3)(c) added, p. 613, § 1, effective March 16; (5) amended, p. 557, § 10, effective July 1. L. 92: (3)(a)(II)(B) and

(3)(b)(I) amended, p. 1795, § 4, effective April 10. L. 96: (1) and (1.6) amended, p. 27, § 1, effective March 13. L. 2000: (3)(a)(I) amended, p. 1393, § 1, effective October 1. L. 2009: (1), (1.2), (1.6), (3)(a)(I)(A), and (8) amended and (3)(a)(IV) added, (HB 09-1076), ch. 408, p. 2248, § 1, effective June 2. L. 2013: (3)(a)(III) amended, (HB 13-1054), ch. 92, p. 295, § 1, effective April 4. L. 2020: (1)(a) amended, (SB 20-170), ch. 297, p. 1478, § 2, effective January 1, 2021.

Editor's note: Subsection (7)(b) provided for the repeal of subsection (7), effective July 1, 1984. (See L. 83, p. 430.)

Cross references: For Title II of the "Social Security Act", see 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Redin v. Empire Oldsmobile, Inc., 746 P.2d 52 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Redin v. Empire Oldsmobile, Inc., 746 P.2d 52 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “In those situations, if a person is retiring or has retired from the labor force, it may be appropriate to prorate and offset a lump sum payment of retirement benefits pursuant to § 8-73-110(3), C.”

Pero v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 46 P.3d 484 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “This payment was deemed a severance allowance under § 8-73-110(1), C.R.S.2001, thereby reducing claimant's eligibility for unemployment benefits in accordance with §§ 8-73-107(1)(f) & 8-73-110(1)(a)(III), C.”

Johnson v. Div. of Emp., 550 P.2d 334 (Colo. 1976). · cites it 7× “The commission denied claimant’s claim on the basis of section 8-73-110(3)(a)(I), C.R.S. 1973, which deals with unemployment benefits and provides: “(3)(a) Individuals who receive or are entitled to receive the following types of remuneration shall be entitled to receive for…”

Cericalo v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 114 P.3d 100 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “Thus, the hearing officer and the Panel properly ruled that § 8 — 73—110(3)(a)(I)(A) requires that claimant’s unemployment benefits be reduced by half of the prorated weekly amount of his SSDI benefits, resulting in his ineligibility to receive any unemployment benefits.”

Edwards v. Valdez, 602 F. Supp. 361 (D. Colo. 1985). · cites it 7× “Did the Colorado legislature, in enacting C.R.S. § 8-73-110(3), exceed the federal pension-offset level or did it intend the Colorado statute to be interpreted just as the federal statute is interpreted? I.”

Pace Membership Warehouse v. Axelson, 938 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 3× “§ 8-73-110(5) (emphasis added). In other words, full TTD benefits and UI benefits cannot both be paid for the same *512 time period, but when TTD benefits are reduced against a UI benefit that has been paid, the TTD award is to be offset against the UI benefit so that a…”

Pedreyra v. Cornell Prescription Pharmacies, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 936 (D. Colo. 1979). · cites it 2× “1973, an employee who receives an award of back pay must repay the Colorado Division of Employment and Training all benefit payments made for the period during which a back pay award was received. Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s unemployment benefits should be deducted…”

Fang v. Showa Entetsu Co., Ltd., 91 P.3d 419 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “1994)(superseded on other grounds by § 8-73-110, C.R.S.2003). Not all severance payments, however, constitute compensation.”

Hopkins v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 310 P.3d 147 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “Accordingly, the phrase "contributed to by a base period employer" in section 8-73-110(3)(a)(I)(B) necessarily refers to the employer's actions, including the payment of wages, during the employee's base period.”

Wise v. Olan Mills Inc. of Texas, 495 F. Supp. 257 (D. Colo. 1980). · cites it 3× “1979), that deducting unemployment compensation benefits is particularly inappropriate in Colorado, since section 8-73-110(2), C.R.S.1973, requires an employee who receives a back pay award to repay to the Colorado Division of Employment and Training all benefit payments made…”

Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., 307 P.3d 1093 (Colo. 2013). · cites it 4× “18 The offset provision of section 8-73-110(8)(a)(D(B) states that "an individual's weekly benefit amount shall be reduced (but not below zero) by .”

Green v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 765 P.2d 1064 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “The hearing officer concluded, and the Panel affirmed, that the amounts received by each claimant were severance pay pursuant to § 8-73-110(l)(c), C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.).”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(1) — 3 cases

Pero v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 46 P.3d 484 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “This payment was deemed a severance allowance under § 8-73-110(1), C.R.S.2001, thereby reducing claimant's eligibility for unemployment benefits in accordance with §§ 8-73-107(1)(f) & 8-73-110(1)(a)(III), C.”

Nguyen v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 174 P.3d 847 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).

Moore v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 868 P.2d 1170 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(1)(a) — 1 case

Zimmerman v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(1)(b) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(1)(c) — 1 case

Bockmon v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., 739 P.2d 887 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(2) — 2 cases

Pedreyra v. Cornell Prescription Pharmacies, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 936 (D. Colo. 1979). “1973, an employee who receives an award of back pay must repay the Colorado Division of Employment and Training all benefit payments made for the period during which a back pay award was received. Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s unemployment benefits should be deducted…”

Wise v. Olan Mills Inc. of Texas, 495 F. Supp. 257 (D. Colo. 1980). “1979), that deducting unemployment compensation benefits is particularly inappropriate in Colorado, since section 8-73-110(2), C.R.S.1973, requires an employee who receives a back pay award to repay to the Colorado Division of Employment and Training all benefit payments made…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3) — 3 cases

Redin v. Empire Oldsmobile, Inc., 746 P.2d 52 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “In those situations, if a person is retiring or has retired from the labor force, it may be appropriate to prorate and offset a lump sum payment of retirement benefits pursuant to § 8-73-110(3), C.”

Edwards v. Valdez, 602 F. Supp. 361 (D. Colo. 1985). “Did the Colorado legislature, in enacting C.R.S. § 8-73-110(3), exceed the federal pension-offset level or did it intend the Colorado statute to be interpreted just as the federal statute is interpreted? I.”

Laszar v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 230 P.3d 1263 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(a) — 2 cases

Harrington v. Indus. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 961 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(a)(I) — 4 cases

Johnson v. Div. of Emp., 550 P.2d 334 (Colo. 1976). “The commission denied claimant’s claim on the basis of section 8-73-110(3)(a)(I), C.R.S. 1973, which deals with unemployment benefits and provides: “(3)(a) Individuals who receive or are entitled to receive the following types of remuneration shall be entitled to receive for…”

Cericalo v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 114 P.3d 100 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Thus, the hearing officer and the Panel properly ruled that § 8 — 73—110(3)(a)(I)(A) requires that claimant’s unemployment benefits be reduced by half of the prorated weekly amount of his SSDI benefits, resulting in his ineligibility to receive any unemployment benefits.”

Martinez v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).

Laszar v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 230 P.3d 1263 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(a)(I)(A) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(a)(I)(B) — 2 cases

Hopkins v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 310 P.3d 147 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “Accordingly, the phrase "contributed to by a base period employer" in section 8-73-110(3)(a)(I)(B) necessarily refers to the employer's actions, including the payment of wages, during the employee's base period.”

Martinez v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(a)(II) — 1 case

Laszar v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 230 P.3d 1263 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(a)(II)(B) — 1 case

Martinez v. ICAO (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(a)(III) — 1 case

Laszar v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 230 P.3d 1263 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(3)(c) — 1 case

Laszar v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 230 P.3d 1263 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(5) — 2 cases

Pace Membership Warehouse v. Axelson, 938 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1997). “§ 8-73-110(5) (emphasis added). In other words, full TTD benefits and UI benefits cannot both be paid for the same *512 time period, but when TTD benefits are reduced against a UI benefit that has been paid, the TTD award is to be offset against the UI benefit so that a…”

Schmidt v. Indus. Comm'n, 600 P.2d 76 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(8)(a) — 1 case

Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., 307 P.3d 1093 (Colo. 2013). “18 The offset provision of section 8-73-110(8)(a)(D(B) states that "an individual's weekly benefit amount shall be reduced (but not below zero) by .”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(8)(a)(I) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(8)(a)(I)(B) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(l)(a) — 1 case

Moore v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 868 P.2d 1170 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(l)(c) — 2 cases

Green v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 765 P.2d 1064 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). “The hearing officer concluded, and the Panel affirmed, that the amounts received by each claimant were severance pay pursuant to § 8-73-110(l)(c), C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.).”

Goddard v. E G & G Rocky Flats, Inc., 888 P.2d 369 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-110(l)(e) — 1 case

Moore v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 868 P.2d 1170 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

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.