Retaliation Claims Under CO Equal Pay, Anti-Discrimination Laws: No Gender Discrimination Allegations Needed

Takeaways

• In Verheggen v. Adams County Department of Human Services, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that a wage demand letter that discusses an employee’s wages may qualify as protected activity under both the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and Equal Pay for Equal Work Act.
• While the decision confirms that Colorado employers should treat wage discussions as protected activity, the court also emphasized that the ability to bring a claim does not mean it can be proved.

Related link

• Verheggen v. Adams County Department of Human Services

Article

Addressing for the first time whether employees must allege gender discrimination to bring retaliation claims under the Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA) and the Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) based on wage discussions or disclosures, the Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that neither statute includes such a requirement. Verheggen v. Adams County Department of Human Services, No. 25CA1663 (July 23, 2026).

Background

A long-tenured county employee alleged she was suspended after sending a wage demand letter and filed a complaint regarding unpaid wages. Reasoning that both statutes were enacted to address gender-based pay disparities, the district court dismissed Emily Camp Verheggen’s retaliation claims because she had not alleged gender discrimination.

Appeals Court Decision

Reversing in part, the Court of Appeals held that neither EPEWA nor CADA contains a requirement that gender discrimination be alleged.

Both the EPEWA and CADA prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who “inquired about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed” their wages, the court noted. Finding this language unambiguous, the court concluded that these protections operate independently from the statutes’ gender-based pay discrimination provisions. Neither law limits its retaliation protections to wage discussions involving gender or another protected class. Open discussion about wages, the court explained, promotes wage transparency and helps uncover discriminatory pay practices.

Although the statutory protections are broad, the court emphasized that “just because a claim can be brought does not mean it can be proved.” The court also declined to add limitations the legislature did not include.

Because the employee’s demand letter discussed her wages and allegedly unpaid compensation, the court held that it constituted protected activity. Although the court described the causation question as a “close call,” it found the employee had alleged enough facts for portions of her case to proceed beyond the pleading stage. Importantly, the decision does not establish that retaliation occurred.

Separately, the court affirmed the dismissal of the EPEWA claims against two supervisors because the complaint did not plausibly allege that they qualified as employers.

What Employers Should Know

Verheggen clarifies the practical scope of Colorado’s protections for employee wage discussions. Employers should not assume that the EPEWA and CADA protect only wage discussions involving gender-based pay comparisons.

Before taking adverse action involving an employee who has discussed their wages, Colorado employers should:

• Follow established policies; 
• Apply discipline consistently; and 
• Document legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the decision.

If you have questions about the court’s decision and its implications for your organization, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.