Is 32 hours considered full time in Colorado?

Many Colorado employers provide employee benefits, pay differentials, job assignments and other important benefits on the basis of whether an employee works full time or part time. This can lead to a lot of questions about what is full time under Colorado employment law. These questions typically do not exist when employees work a forty hour workweek but usually arise when employees work thirty-two hours or some other slightly lower number. For example, you might wonder is 32 hours considered full time in Colorado. The answer depends upon to what issue the full time status relates. Today’s post will explore some of the common issues in determining full time status under Colorado employment law.

Basic rule for full time status in Colorado

Colorado labor and employment law does not contain an expansive definition of full time or part time status for employees. In general an employee is full time or part time based upon an employer’s own definition. Full time versus part time is often a dividing line for benefits or certain positions but that line is typically not drawn out of a federal or Colorado employment law.

However, several employment law statutes set minimum or maximum limits for how much an employee may or must work to obtain a specific status under the law. Examples include:

  • Employees must work 1000 hours within a calendar year to obtain FMLA eligibility which might informally be considered a full time employee;
  • Minors generally have limited maximum hours of work within a workweek and cannot be required to miss school hours for work;
  • Employees working in certain transportation jobs may be limited by how many travel hours they may complete in a day or week;

We will talk about some common statutory minimum hours for full time status under federal and Colorado employment law in greater detail although it is important to note that the term “full time” is not common statutory or regulatory language in federal and Colorado law.

When a labor law or employment law does not set a minimum or maximum hourly requirement it is generally up to the employer or an agreement between employees and employer to determine when full time status kicks in for particular benefits, job assignments, compensation and so forth. Many Colorado employers consider full time a forty hour workweek schedule but some draw the line at a smaller number. Some employers set the line at thirty-five or thirty-two hours, particularly in industries like restaurants and retail where employees might work flexible schedules or less than a five day workweek.

The best way to assess whether you are a full time employee in Colorado at thirty-two hours is to focus on the specific subject in which the full time status applies. Review your employer’s documentation and legal resources to determine the answer as it applies to that subject. You might be full time for some subjects and not for others. Applying a single rule to every workplace issue might result in misinforming yourself. Operating on misinformed positions could put your job at risk. As always, if legal issues are involved in your question you should consult employment lawyers in Colorado as soon as possible.

Overtime pay in Colorado

Overtime pay is not exactly a full time versus part time issue but it definitely deals with the work hours for an employee. Federal and Colorado overtime laws calculate overtime pay for all hours in the workweek exceeding forty hours of work for all nonexempt employees. For this purpose an employee can be considered a full time employee at forty hours under the statute. An employee working overtime hours is more than full time. An employer could begin paying overtime pay at thirty-two hours if it wishes but that is an extremely uncommon practice.

Employee benefits and full time status

Most employees care about full time status because employers make benefit plans available to full time employees but may not extend them to part time employees. When we think about employee benefits from an employment law perspective we can think of them in two categories. The differences in categories is important to how and when an employer may make benefits available to employees based on work hours.

Regulated benefit plans under federal and Colorado employment law

First are employee benefit plans regulated by law. For private employers this typically falls under ERISA, the federal law regulating many types of employee benefit plans including:

  • 401k plans
  • Defined benefit pension plans
  • 403b plans
  • Health care plans (e.g. health insurance)
  • Cafeteria plans (e.g. reimbursement benefits)
  • Certain long and short term disability benefits
  • Some severance benefits

Employees of federal and Colorado government agencies often offer similar benefits operated under a plan regulated by state or federal laws as applicable. Although the complex regulatory apparatus behind ERISA does not apply to these plans they still generally follow similar regulatory mechanisms.

Benefits regulated by ERISA or other laws must operate as a plan with established rules. The applicable laws often set requirements for eligibility to the plan. Often employers may establish rules for eligibility based upon hours or length of service with the employer within the permitted confines of the law. Often employers can set eligibility on completion of a certain number of work hours in a year which effectively makes many part time employees ineligible for benefits.

A specific weekly hour threshold exists in the Affordable Care Act. Under the ACA employers must make available compliant health insurance to all employees who regularly work at least thirty hours in a work week. For the purposes of the ACA an employee is full time if the employee works thirty hours in a regular work week. Employers cannot set a higher limit for full time like thirty-two hours or forty hours.

Other benefits or fringe benefits

Employers may offer other benefits not regulated by ERISA or other laws. For these benefits an employer can generally set whatever constraints on eligibility it wishes. (Employers cannot use an unlawful motivation to extend benefits, such as unlawful forms of employment discrimination or in retaliation for complaining about a minimum wage violation.) These benefits include:

  • Paid time off (e.g. vacation pay, sick pay, personal days)
  • Company car
  • Most bonus programs
  • Training programs
  • Company sport programs
  • Free tickets to events
  • Raffles

Employers can set limits for work hours, length of service, job title and so forth to make these benefits available. If an employer sets a threshold for work hours as a full time employee for these benefits it may do so and even set different standards for each benefit. Often employers try to target a specific number for consistency, such as fort hours or thirty-two hours for full time employment across benefits; but an employer is free to have a more confusing policy.

Unemployment benefits in Colorado and employment status

Colorado unemployment benefits require that employees work for a given length of time and earn a minimum of $2500 during that period. It does not require an employee to work any specific number of hours in a workweek or for an employer to designate employees as full time employees. So long as an employee meets the length of service and wage minimums then the employee qualifies for a claim. (Assuming the employee otherwise qualifies.)

Some employers as a matter of course pay severance benefits to employees designated as full time employees. Here the issue may be complicated because a severance plan may fall under ERISA regulation but does not necessarily fall under ERISA regulation. The best way to begin answering that question is to review the severance information available from your employer which may include ERISA language.

Advertisements

NLRB revises independent contractors test for federal labor law rights

Last week the Republican-majority National Labor Relations Board overturned its 2014 independent contractor test expanding labor law rights to more workers under the National Labor Relations Act. This unsurprising move reflects the Trump administration’s hostility towards administrative regulation and workers’ rights. The revised test will open the door for employers to classify workers as independent contractors to further erode worker rights and compensation.

The NLRB 2014 independent contractor test for labor rights

Under the National Labor Relations Act and its later amending acts, a worker obtains labor rights under the NLRA if the worker is classified as an employee. The problem is that the statutory language, like many labor and employment laws, lacks a clear mechanism to determine who is an employee under the statute. Courts and administrative agencies often rely on one of several common law tests. These tests weigh factors related to important components of the employer-worker relationship.

Historically the NLRB applied the common law agency test first focusing on the employer’s control over the worker and later shifting to focusing on the entrepreneurial opportunity for gains or losses. Ten years ago a challenge to the independent contractor classification of drivers at Fedex led to the D.C. Circuit applying the ten factor common law agency test and focusing on the entrepreneurial opportunity for gains or losses. (Fedex I.) The D.C. Circuit in FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009) reviewed the NLRB’s historical application of the test and applied the test to hold the drivers were independent contractors and not employees.

In a subsequent NLRB proceeding in 2014 the labor board disagreed. The NLRB refined its application of the common law test to a test by adding a factor considering whether the independent contractor works for an independent business rather than the usual wink wink relationship that a worker is an independent contractor because the business says so. The now eleven factor test included:

  1. Extent of control by the employer
  2. Whether or not the individual is engaged in a distinct occupation or business
  3. Whether the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision
  4. Skill required in the occupation
  5. Whether the employer or individual supplies instrumentalities, tools, and place of work
  6. Length of time for which individual is employed
  7. Method of payment
  8. Whether or not work is part of the regular business of the employer
  9. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an independent contractor relationship
  10. Whether the principal is or is not in the business
  11. (New:) Whether the evidence tends to show that the individual is, in fact, rendering services as an independent business

The NLRB applied this refined test to find another set of drivers are employees. Agast, Fedex appealed the decision. The D.C. Circuit again insisted its pro-business interpretation was correct and the NLRB should have expected the same result. (Fedex II.) Nevertheless the NLRB refused to walk back its refined test.

The NLRB’s 2014 refinement of its independent contractor test makes tremendous sense in light of current trends in employment. Employers increasingly shift jobs from employee to independent contractor to avoid labor and employment laws and reduce labor costs. Jobs shift to supposed independent contractors who do not operate independent businesses, only work for a single employer and have their work substantially controlled by that employer. Few disinterested and rational individuals would look at these relationships as anything less than employer-employee.

New NLRB decision on independent contractor classification

In 2018 a complaint was filed by franchisee drivers at DFW Airport alleging, under the NLRB’s refined test, that they are employees eligible to unionize under federal law. The employer was quick to point out Fedex II and the now Republican-majority NLRB agreed. It overturned the 2014 refinement returning to the ten factor common law agency test. 

“The board majority’s decision in FedEx did far more than merely ‘refine’ the common-law independent contractor test — it ‘fundamentally shifted the independent contractor analysis, for implicit policy-based reasons, to one of economic realities, i.e., a test that greatly diminishes the significance of entrepreneurial opportunity and selectively overemphasizes the significance of ‘right to control’ factors relevant to perceived economic dependency’…”

The majority claims it does not give entrepreneurial opportunity heightened consideration or raise it as a super-factor (as the court does in Fedex I) but it certainly devotes considerable space to that single factor before addressing in less detail any other. It’s difficult to imagine the majority did this unintentionally or that the board will not proceed with heavily weighing the entrepreneurial opportunity over other factors–at least in these contractor relationships.

In between 2014 and 2018 the NLRB rule gave employers pause from believing independent contractor classifications rid them of worry about unionization; but that pause is certainly over. Returning to a rule that makes it easier to avoid labor law concerns in the workplace does more than help employers sleep better at night or trim their legal budget for labor law attorneys. It incentivizes employers to structure jobs as independent contractors which in turn means fewer worker rights and less pay.

Labor and employment law bills proposed in the 2019 Colorado legislative session

Colorado starts 2019’s legislative session with a healthy list of 227 proposed bills, many including provisions affecting the state’s labor laws and employment laws. Today’s post will briefly identify and discuss the major Colorado labor law and employment law changes proposed so far this year. Denver labor law will update as these bills move through the legislature and potentially become law.

SCOTUS rejects mandatory arbitration for transportation workers classified as independent contractors

Last week the Supreme Court dropped its unanimous decision in New Prime v. Oliveira penned by Justice Gorsuch, weighing in on the application of the Federal Arbitration Act to independent contractors of a transportation company. Many liberal media outlets describe the opinion as a win for workers because the court held in favor of the workers rather than the employer. Even articles taking issue with Justice Gorsuch’s textualist approach to the Federal Arbitration Act consider the opinion a win without considering its broader effect that employer-side employment lawyers will surely grasp. Viewed from its broader consequences, New Prime is not without collateral damage.

A brief history of employment law and the Federal Arbitration Act

Mandatory arbitration became commonplace in employment contracts and employment agreements as a condition of employment after the Supreme Court heavily rewrote the Federal Arbitration Act in the 1980s.

In 1925 Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act which enforces arbitration clauses in contracts covered by the act. The Federal Arbitration Act was designed to create a meaningful dispute resolution framework between businesses that conducted transactions across the country. It intended to avoid situations in which a dispute arose over a purchase agreement and the parties might end up fighting in court for a long period of time or maneuvering a dispute into a local court that might heavily favor one party over the other. Instead the parties could agree to have a dispute resolved quickly by an arbitrator who was impartial and likely had familiarity with transactions in that industry.

Everybody seemed to agree with this history until we reached the excess capitalism of the 1980s. In the late 1970s and early 1980s enterprising businesses, primarily in banking and lending, fought to repurpose the Federal Arbitration Act to apply to consumer transactions. Courts agreed and mandatory arbitration agreements became part of many consumer agreements for credit cards, bank accounts, utility services and sometimes even retail purchases.

Arbitration in consumer agreements provides businesses several advantages over litigation. Arbitration proceedings are often cheaper and result in smaller adverse judgments. Companies have less incentive to settle and even when they lose they lose less. Arbitration proceedings are framed by the party demanding arbitration so it is often a friendly environment and avoids courts which may be more impartial. Arbitration decisions are often not published so even when companies suffer adverse judgments they are concealed from the public which makes it harder for consumers to assess their potential relief in this forum.

Companies liked arbitration so much that they expanded mandatory arbitration to employment agreements. Employers in the 1980s and 1990s began requiring employees to sign forced arbitration agreements for employee claims under a wide range of employment law and labor law claims. This was different from labor arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement in which the union and employer negotiated the terms of arbitration proceedings. Under these forced arbitration agreements, employers held absolute control over arbitration terms. Employees signed the agreements or lost their jobs.

Circuit City v. Adams and the FAA in employment agreements

In 2001 the Supreme Court rendered judgment in Circuit City v. Adams holding that the FAA applied to employment agreements. Adams applied for a job with Circuit City in which the employment application contained a unilateral agreement to arbitrate all employment claims. Adams later filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Circuit City, which attempted to move the lawsuit into arbitration pursuant to this agreement.

The Supreme Court majority took on a tortured reading of the Federal Arbitration Act to reach this conclusion. Within the FAA are two relevant passages:

Section 1: “…nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

Section 2: “A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”

At issue in Circuit City is how expansively Section 1 limits the FAA’s application to employment contracts and the extent any employment agreement not exempted by Section 1 falls within Section 2. The majority applies two different cannons of statutory construction to give the word “commerce” two opposing definitions in the same statute. According to the majority, commerce in Section 1 must be narrowly defined because the section describes some of the workers. The applicable cannon of statutory construction mandates when a general term follows specific terms, the general term is interpreted as including items like the specific. As a result, the employees exempted by Section 1 only include employees involved in transportation (like railway workers and seamen). All other employee contracts are not exempt. Conversely, commerce in Section 2 must be expansively defined because it lacks any limiting language and the FAA intended to expansively cover the extent of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.

(The reasoning here is awful and well excoriated by the dissenting opinions. It is well worth exploring but beyond the scope of this post.)

As a result of Circuit City we have expansive legal protection for forced arbitration in employment with very little limitation.

New Prime v. Oliveira and forced arbitration of independent contractors

New Prime deals with relationship between the FAA and non-employee workers. Here Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion provides further confusion into interpreting the FAA in the employment context although he finds an interpretation that favors the workers in this particular situation.

New Prime is a transportation company that hires truck drivers as independent contractors. As part of their contracts the drivers agree to arbitrate claims related to their work on an individual basis. Oliveira filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and his co-workers alleging wage-based claims. New Prime sought to remove the lawsuit to arbitration and chop up the class action into individual actions under its arbitration agreement.

Justice Gorsuch applies a supposed textualist approach to determine the drivers have contracts of employment under the Federal Arbitration Agreement. He advances the position that language of the act must be interpreted within the ordinary meaning of its time. He finds that in 1925 there was no distinction between independent contractor and employee and the term employment applied to all employment relationships. Truck drivers are as well employees like railway workers and sea workers therefore they are the types of workers covered even among Circuit City‘s limited scope of Section 1. Therefore, although New Prime did not employ the drivers as employees their employment agreement fell within the FAA’s contract of employment language.

New Prime gives us an even more confusing view of the Federal Arbitration Act. Combining New Prime and Circuit City we have no consistent standard to interpret the statute. On one hand, New Prime tells us to read the statute in the context of its time but Circuit City tells us to read the statute in its modern setting in which commerce is defined in a much broader term than at the time the FAA was enacted. We are forced to read Section 2 in a post-Wickard, everything-is-commerce interpretation but read section 2 in a pre-Wickard interpretation where commerce is narrowly defined. It’s almost like this kind of textualism is goal-oriented.

Why New Prime isn’t worth quite the praise it gets

Across liberal and legal press one can quickly find piece after piece congratulating Justice Gorsuch for overlooking his traditionally pro-business position to give the day to the workers in New Prime. (For example, here, here, here, here and here.) That oversells the inevitable impact of this opinion for labor law and employment law.

Sure, New Prime is a win for workers engaged in transportation jobs like those covered by Circuit City‘s interpretation of workers covered by Section 1’s exemption. Employers may no longer get away with properly or improperly defining these workers as independent contractors, rather than employees, to force them into mandatory arbitration agreements. It does not help them gain any other protections as employees but it does avoid mandatory arbitration. This is certainly a tremendous win for transportation workers regardless of their classification as employee or independent contractor.

However, New Prime‘s interpretation of Section 1 is not without collateral damage. Although all transportation workers may fall within New Prime‘s interpretation of Section 1’s exemption it does not mean those same workers may receive exemption under state law. In the end, all these workers may find themselves in mandatory arbitration anyway. It also does not help that New Prime doubles down on the narrow interpretation of Section 1 found in Circuit City. The greatest problem with New Prime is that it leaves little question that SCOTUS definitely views independent contractor relationships as well within the FAA’s scope. Enterprising plaintiff-side employment lawyers are likely to find reason to challenge applying the FAA to independent contractor relationships particularly in light of last year’s Epic Systems opinion (and its basis in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion) upholding class action waivers in mandatory arbitration employment agreements.

Denver public school teachers on the verge of strike

For the past year, teachers in the Denver public school system have negotiated with administrators over a new bargained agreement covering their employment with little success. As the current CBA reaches expiration on January 18, employees face a strike vote on the following day. If Denver teachers vote to strike it may leave Denver public schools with the choice to close schools temporarily, replace teachers with short term replacements or bargain to give its teachers appropriate compensation. The final negotiation sessions before the strike take place this week ahead of the expiration of the current CBA. The teachers’ union has already informed the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment of its intent to strike, as required by the Colorado Peace Act.

Denver teachers currently receive compensation through a complicated formula of base salary and bonuses. The existing collective bargaining agreement, like many educational CBAs, includes lanes for salary compensation that reward teachers for continued education and tenure in addition to cost of living adjustments. Additionally, Denver teachers receive bonuses based upon several additional factors, such as teaching in underserved areas and school performance. The bonuses are funded from a local tax initiative for this purpose. Any bargained agreement lacking these bonuses will result in losing access to that revenue for teacher compensation. This compensation program is known as ProComp.

Downtown Denver, Colorado

The divide between the Denver teachers’ union and Denver Public Schools

The Denver Public School system and the Denver teachers’ union (Denver Classroom Teachers Association) remain at odds over several basic issues. The Denver teachers’ union wants to increase funding for compensation, simply the compensation structure, move more funding into base pay rather than bonuses and create salary lanes making it possible for ambitious teachers to earn $100,000 in compensation. The Denver Public School system, like any employer, wants to add far less to teacher pay and maintain the bonus structure. This represents an extremely common divide in labor law negotiations.

The Denver teachers’ union is not fighting for more pay for the sake of simply increasing member compensation. Denver teachers are underpaid compared to surrounding districts and face higher costs of living to live in the same district where they teach–even with regular cost of living pay adjustments. This has the result of driving successful teachers out of Denver schools and into other surrounding Colorado districts. It also causes many teachers to have to live outside of Denver, increasing their commute and diminishing their ownership of the success of their schools. The lack of financial predictability in pay also makes it harder for teachers to plan appropriately for their financial future.

Denver school administrators talk a good game about wanting to improve these problems but so far fail to put enough of the district’s $1 billion budget towards one of its most important assets. Predictably school officials want to maintain a complex formula based on bonuses because it forces teachers to absorb the consequences of administrative failings by tying their compensation to school success. It also has the effect of reducing overall compensation by preventing teachers from accumulating an increasingly higher salary over time. 

These are not hypothetical problems justifying improving Denver teacher pay. Comparisons of compensation structures between Denver and other school districts reflects underpaid Denver teachers. The high turnover of teachers as they flee Denver for more pay is not hypothetical. It is a real and statistically proven problem. High turnover creates several problems for the Denver school district:

  • Schools lose institutional knowledge of the students at the school and loses long term bonds with the local community;
  • Teachers with the best qualifications are able to find better paying jobs elsewhere, lowering the quality of teachers remaining in the schools;
  • Tenure of teachers at Denver schools declines which reduces the level of experience from which younger teachers can learn;
  • The Denver district spends more resources recruiting and training teachers which are lost as teachers leave for other districts, making each teacher more expensive despite not increasing compensation; and
  • Teachers have less incentive to invest personally in the performance of the school when they expect to leave in a few years for another district.

Why Denver teachers should strike if Denver Public Schools cannot agree to a fair negotiation package

Denver teachers deserve a fair compensation structure for their work that reflects their value to the community. If teachers are expected to be professionals working in a major city then they should be appropriately compensated as such. Denver school administrators should treat the investment of public resources into recruiting and training teachers as an important investment in the city. A compensation structure that treats teachers as fungible and a burden to the city does not improve Denver schools.

Teachers in Denver should strike if a fair agreement cannot be reached. Denver school officials will feel no pressure to move the terms of their proposal as long as they feel teachers will eventually cave. A labor strike will put school officials on a clock to figure out how to deal with the problem or face a school district without teachers. It will also add publicity to the dispute and motivate parents to push the district towards finding a solution. Teachers around the country face similar problems (including the extremely similar situation currently in Los Angeles). Each union that strikes over unfair compensation will put the next district on notice that it needs to deal fairly with the union or face similar consequences.

Wrongful termination attorneys in Colorado

Are paid 15 minute breaks required by law under Colorado labor law?

Colorado employees seek out the answer to this question with high frequency for good reason. Colorado is one of the states that has a labor and employment law that requires many employees to receive a paid break at work and gives employees legal remedies when employers refuse to provide legally required paid breaks. In this post we will discuss some of the legal issues around Colorado’s paid break law and when you might need to talk to an employment lawyer in Colorado if you do not receive paid breaks required by law. Before getting into those details, let’s get to a brief answer under Colorado law about paid 15 minute breaks. Under Colorado law, nonexempt employees are entitled to paid 10 minute breaks every four hours of work but not entitled to 15 minute paid breaks. Employee break laws involve both federal and state law so let’s take a look at how each affects employee rights to unpaid and paid breaks.

Federal law on paid breaks for employees

Federal law does not require paid breaks for employees but establishes minimum standards for whether breaks are paid or unpaid when they occur. The federal employment law that applies to most employees on the subject of breaks is the Fair Labor Standards Act. FLSA sets minimum wage conditions for covered, nonexempt employees in all states. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees are not generally entitled to break periods at all. If, however, an employee receives a break period of less than twenty minutes then the employee must be paid for that break time. 

An important caveat under the FLSA applies to mothers who need break time to express milk. The PPACA created a specific break rule in this situation. The PPACA amended the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. section 207(r)(1) to require reasonable break time for mothers to express milk. This rule applies if:

  • The mother gave birth within the past year;
  • Is covered by the overtime protections of the FLSA;
  • The employer employees 50 or more employees; and
  • The employer cannot claim undue hardship to provide the required break time.

Under the FLSA amendment the break period for expressing milk does not have to be paid; however, if the employer provides breaks under twenty minutes and that break time is used for expressing milk then it must be paid like any other paid break under FLSA.

Federal law provides for a wide range of unpaid break or rest periods to employees under different circumstances. These include:

  • Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) covered leave;
  • Leave as an accommodation for a disability;
  • Required rest for transportation workers; and
  • Pregnancy leave under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The FLSA does not require employers to provide unpaid rest periods for lunches but if an employer provides a rest period greater than twenty minutes then it is not required to pay for that time so long as the employee is truly relieved of all work on behalf of the employer.

Colorado labor and employment laws on paid breaks

Colorado law specifically requires paid and unpaid break periods for employees covered by the state wage law. Colorado has other state laws that require unpaid break periods for particular purposes like family leave or as an accommodation for a disability; but let’s focus on how Colorado law expands on the FLSA for both paid and unpaid break periods under the normal work day.

Like federal law, Colorado labor laws protect break periods for employees covered by the state wage law. If you are exempt from this law then state law does not require employers to provide typical break or lunch periods. Most employees are covered by Colorado wage law under the Colorado Wage Act, found in Title 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.

The rules for typical breaks under Colorado law arise under Colorado Minimum Wage Order 34 and require:

  • A paid 10 minute break in the middle of each four hour work period as practical as possible to place the break in the middle of the four hour work period;
  • An unpaid 30 minute break or lunch when the work schedule exceeds five consecutive hours, if practical;
    • If not practical then the employer must allow the employee an opportunity to each a meal of choice on the clock whether provided by the employer or employee.

An employer can require the employee to stay on work premises during the paid ten minute break but not during the longer unpaid lunch period.

Colorado employment law

Putting federal and Colorado paid break laws together

Note that the Colorado Wage Act and the current Minimum Wage Order do not require paid 15 minute break periods although fifteen minutes is the standard break period for many employers. If an employer provides a fifteen minute break period then it must be paid for covered employees under the FLSA; but the employer only has to provide a ten minute period for covered employees under the Colorado Wage Act. Putting the two together for an employee covered by both federal and state minimum wage laws:

  • The employer must provide a paid 10 minute break every four hours;
  • The employer may extend the break period to 15 minutes;
  • If the employer extends the break period to 15 minutes then it must be a paid 15 minute break.

If you work under an individual employment contract or a collective bargaining agreement, the contract or agreement may provide additional requirements for rest periods.

Remedies against a Colorado employer for violating paid break requirements

Although federal and Colorado wage laws overlap and work together to establish minimum paid break rules, the remedies under each law are unique to the requirements of the respective law.

Federal law

Federal law only requires employers to pay for breaks of twenty minutes or less so when employees take these breaks they must count as compensable time in the day worked. The employee’s break time must count within the work hours and receive minimum wage and overtime pay for all compensable work time within the work week. An employer who fails to count compensable breaks within the workweek is liable for unpaid minimum wage and overtime pay (as appropriate).

Colorado law

Colorado law is more expansive in its protections because breaks are required for nonexempt employees. If the employee receives the required ten minute breaks but the employer does not include the breaks within compensable time then the employer is liable to the employee for unpaid wages and overtime pay (as appropriate) for the ten minute breaks. Here, federal and Colorado law is similar.

However, if the employee does not receive the breaks then the employee can pursue the employer for claims related to this violation of the Minimum Wage Order. Employees may not have tremendous claims if the employer only does not provide the required paid ten minute breaks but an employee could nevertheless pursue a claim for the violation. If the employer takes disciplinary action against an employee who demands due paid breaks then the employee may have a stronger claim against the employer for the effects of the disciplinary action. Employees have successfully sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when employers terminate employees in retaliation for demanding the legally required break periods.

Talk to an employment lawyer in Colorado about your employee break rights

If you believe you are not receiving required break periods or not being properly paid for your breaks then you should talk to a Denver employment lawyer right away. Wage-based claims carry a statute of limitations period that applies to each pay period so delay working on your potential claims may limit your right to recover due wages. An employment lawyer can help assess your situation and whether you have claims to pursue against your employer. Recall that some employees are exempt from the break rules under federal and Colorado law. Demanding breaks not required by law or by an employment contract could result in losing your job with recourse. An employment lawyer can help assess whether you are entitled to breaks and what next steps may be available to you.