Search form

Colorado Broadens Whistleblower Protection for State Employees Who Disclose Confidential Information

By Timothy M. Kratz and Kristen M. Baylis
  • June 29, 2016

Encouraging government whistleblowers, an amendment to Colorado law bars disciplinary actions against state employees who reveal confidential information while reporting instances of waste, mismanagement of public funds, abuses of authority, or illegal and unethical practices to a designated “whistleblower review agency.” Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed the amendment (SB 16-056) to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-50.5-101 et seq. on June 10, 2016.

The law defines whistleblower review agencies to include the office of legislative legal services, the state attorney general, or the commission on judicial discipline.

Prior to this amendment, there were no whistleblower protections for Colorado government employees who revealed confidential information exempted from disclosure by the Colorado Open Records Act or another state statute.

Now, the law protects an employee’s disclosure of confidential information if the employee first discloses the information to a review agency to determine whether the information is releasable or should remain confidential. If the information is releasable, the agency is tasked with releasing the information to members of the general assembly and to the public. The whistleblower review agency also must notify the disclosing employee’s supervisor that the agency has received the information and remind the supervisor that retaliation is prohibited (unless limited statutory exceptions apply).

The amendment does not affect the employee’s right to bring a private right of action after first bringing a complaint to the state personnel board pursuant to Section 24-50.5-105.

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions about this and other workplace developments.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 4, 2018

New Jersey Ban-the-Box Law Limits Inquiries into Job Applicants’ Expunged Criminal Records

January 4, 2018

New Jersey has amended its “ban-the-box” law to prohibit inquiries into a job applicant’s expunged criminal record during the initial employment application process. The New Jersey Opportunity to Compete Act (commonly known as the “Ban-the-Box Law”) already restricts employers from asking a job applicant about his or her criminal... Read More

January 2, 2018

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2018

January 2, 2018

Re-Examining Employer Anti-Sexual Harassment Practices With the increased focus on workplace harassment, the time is now for employers to review their practices for preventing and addressing harassment. Read full article… Labor Board General Counsel Plans New Course National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Peter Robb has... Read More

November 28, 2017

Washington Law Bars Retaliatory Discrimination against Job Applicants, State Supreme Court Holds

November 28, 2017

Employers who refuse to hire job applicants who opposed discrimination in a prior job may be sued for retaliation under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), the Washington Supreme Court has held in a unanimous decision. Zhu v. North Central Educ. Servs. – ESD 171, No. 94209-9 (Nov. 9, 2017). The Court ruled that WLAD creates... Read More

Related Practices