The Rocky Mountain Employer

On January 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued an opinion letter explaining that leave taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to attend medical appointments may include the time spent traveling to and from the appointment. This is true even when an employee’s medical certification from a health care provider confirms the need for the appointment but does not address the associated travel time.

“In December 2024, Rocky Mountain Employer examined the Colorado labor movement’s push to eliminate the Colorado Labor Peace Act’s (“LPA”) requirement that employees approve union security agreements through a second election subject to a heightened approval threshold. That effort culminated in the General Assembly’s passage of Senate Bill 25-005 (“SB25-005”) in 2025, which Colorado Governor Jared Polis vetoed. As discussed in a previous Rocky Mountain Employer article analyzing the veto, the Governor’s decision preserved Colorado’s status as a modified right-to-work state, while signaling that renewed legislative efforts were likely. Those efforts have now resumed. At the outset of the 2026 legislative session, Democratic lawmakers have reintroduced House Bill 26-1005, which is substantially similar to the 2025 version, once again placing the LPA’s second-election requirement at the center of Colorado’s labor policy debate.”

“On January 1, 2026, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment’s Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance (the “Division”) issued an emergency amendment (the “Amendment”) to its regulations concerning employee and employer rights and responsibilities under Colorado’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act and program (“FAMLI”). The Amendment extends the time period to comply with certain tax reporting and withholding requirements issued by the IRS.”

“The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) is structured as a five-member body, but the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) requires at least three Senate-confirmed members for the Board to exercise its full authority, including issuing decisions, resolving appeals, and setting binding precedent under federal labor law. For much of 2025, the Board has operated below that three-member quorum, leaving it unable to issue Board-level decisions even as regional offices and enforcement functions have remained active, effectively preventing the Board from carrying out its core adjudicatory role. This dynamic is likely to shift in 2026, as the confirmation of pending nominees would restore the Board’s quorum and allow it to again issue binding decisions and provide long-awaited clarity to employers and employees.”

“As 2026 draws near, a few important statutory and regulatory updates are set to take effect on January 1 that will require Colorado employers to revise policies, payroll configurations, and internal leave administration. While the list is not exhaustive, the changes that are to take effect carry implications for employers navigating parental leave, minimum wages and wage thresholds, and compliance planning in the year ahead.”

“On June 30, 2026, Colorado’s Senate Bill 24-205 (“SB24-205”), also known as the Colorado AI Act, goes into effect. The law requires employers to exercise reasonable care when using high-risk AI systems to prevent algorithmic discrimination. SB24-205 authorizes the Colorado Attorney General (“AG”) to treat violations as deceptive trade practices and to impose civil penalties for violations.”

“On November 6, 2025, Republican members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (“HELP”) introduced a package of bills[1] that, if passed, would significantly favor employers by revising the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and related statutes. The bills’ purported aim is to reshape union elections, deter frivolous unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charges, increase union financial transparency, and limit how unions use worker data. The most pertinent bills in the package affecting employers are discussed below.”

‍ ‍

“In Russell v. Driscoll, a case alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, Paul Russell (“Russell”) argued to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, claims alleging a hostile work environment are no longer required to show that the harm resulting from discriminatory conduct was so “severe or pervasive” that it altered the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Although an internal investigation into Russell’s workplace at the Irwin Army Community Hospital at Fort Riley in Kansas concluded his supervisor had discriminated based on sex, the district court dismissed his claim because it found that the discriminatory conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet the legal standard of an actionable hostile work environment claim. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit declined to adopt Russell’s argument, leaving the standard in place for hostile environment claims.”

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

‍ ‍“In Snyder v. Beam Technologies, Inc., the Tenth Circuit clarified the distinction between “ownership” and “possession” under federal and state trade secret laws. The Court held that while only an “owner” of a trade secret may bring a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) may allow a lawful “possessor” of a trade secret to bring suit. Even so, the Court affirmed that a plaintiff must still demonstrate that reasonable measures were taken to maintain secrecy—an element that Plaintiff, John Snyder (“Snyder”) failed to establish.”

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

“Douglas County, Colorado (“the County”), has filed a federal Lawsuit (the “Lawsuit”) challenging a 2022 state law that grants county employees the right to unionize and requires counties to remain neutral during union organization efforts. The case, Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County v. Polis,raises significant constitutional and labor law questions that could shape how governments and potentially private employers nationwide address union organization efforts. The County argues that the law, known as the Colorado Collective Bargaining for County Employees Act (“COBCA”), violates the First Amendment and conflicts with federal labor law. According to the complaint, COBCA not only restricts the speech of local officials but also intrudes into an area that Congress intended to leave open under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).”

‍ ‍

‍ ‍

“On October 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Colorado heard oral arguments on a single question from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “District Court”) in Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc.: Does Colorado law recognize a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that allows an employee to bring a wrongful termination claim in the event the employee is terminated for actions taken in self-defense?  If the Supreme Court answers, “yes,” Colorado employers will need to consider an employee’s right to self-defense when violence arises in the workplace when drafting its workplace policies.”

“The Colorado Department of Labor & Employment Division of Labor Standards & Statistics (the “DLSS”) announced a public hearing of proposed rulemaking will occur on November 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. (attendance by remote means only) (the “Hearing”) to make rules for new employment laws, including the law allowing liability for wage claims for an individual who owns 25% or more of a company.  If you are interested in participating in or testifying at the hearing use this form.”

On Monday October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to review a Third Circuit ruling on whether home health aides’ (“HHA”) travel time between patient visits during one continuous workday must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”).  The Supreme Court’s decision to decline review effectively allows the circuit courts to follow the Third Circuit’s reasoning for determining whether travel time is integral and indispensable to the employee’s principal working activity.

“On September 19, 2025, the federal government reshaped the H-1B program on two fronts. Employers now face dramatically higher fees just to enter the H-1B lottery, while the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) new “Project Firewall” initiative promises more aggressive enforcement on the back end. For businesses that rely on foreign talent, the risks—and the costs—have never been higher.”

“On September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Colorado issued a significant decision en banc in By the Rockies LLC v. Perez, holding that the statute of limitations under the Colorado Wage Claims Act (“CWCA”) applies to claims brought under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (“CMWA”). The Court’s ruling resolves a split at the state’s appellate level and brings consistency between Colorado and federal law, which follows a similar statute of limitations period.“

On September 9, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered a transgender woman’s lawsuit against her employer, the Sheriff’s Office of Houston County, Georgia (the “County”).  The lawsuit alleged that the County’s healthcare plan (the “Plan”) discriminated based on sex due to it excluding gender-affirming surgery from coverage. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Plan did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) on its face, giving employers in Colorado an insight as to what the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals could decide in similar cases that their transgender employees may bring against them.

“On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) under President Biden’s administration issued a rule banning noncompete agreements nationwide (“Rule”), which was immediately challenged in court and eventually enjoined from taking effect.  Recently, under the Trump administration the FTC moved to dismiss two appeals of the injunction pending in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, citing the change in administration as well as public comments made by FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson as grounds for an initial stay of the case.  Now, the agency has officially walked back its support of the Rule.”