July 18, 2019

Archives for February 24, 2012

HB 12-1134: Prohibiting Employers from Requiring Applicants to be Employed

On January 20, 2012, Rep. Dan Pabon introduced HB 12-1134 – Concerning a Prohibition Against Advertising a Job Vacancy that Requires an Applicant to be Currently Employed. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill prohibits an employer, employer’s agent, employer’s representative, or employer’s designee from publishing, in print or on the internet, an advertisement for any job vacancy that contains certain provisions. Prohibited provisions include:

  • The qualifications for a job include current employment;
  • An application for employment will not be considered if the applicant is currently unemployed; or
  • Only applications submitted by job applicants who are currently employed will be considered. An employer who violates the provisions of the bill is subject to a civil penalty. The bill also clarifies that the prohibitions regarding advertising do not establish a private cause of action by an aggrieved person.

Assigned to the Economic and Business Development Committee; the bill is scheduled for committee review on Tuesday, February 21 at 1:30 p.m.

Since this summary, the bill was postponed indefinitely by the Economic and Business Development Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1128: Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Places Due to Unconventional Attire

On January 20, 2012, Rep. Joe Miklosi introduced HB 12-1128 – Concerning a Prohibition on Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation that is Based on Unconventional Attire. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill adds “unconventional attire” as grounds on which discrimination in places of public accommodation may not be based. “Unconventional attire” means dress that indicates a person’s participation in motorcycling or status as a veteran. Assigned to the State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1120: Division of Unemployment Insurance Created

On January 20, 2012, Rep. Keith Swertfeger and Sen. Lois Tochtrop introduced HB 12-1120 – Concerning the Creation of the Division of Unemployment Insurance in the Department of Labor and Employment to Administer the Unemployment Insurance Program. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Under current law, the Division of Employment and Training in the Department of Labor and Employment is tasked with administering both the unemployment compensation program and the work force development program within the department. The bill creates a new division of unemployment insurance (UI Division) within the Labor and Employment Department and tasks the UI division with administering the unemployment compensation program. The Employment and Training Division is relocated to a new article in the statutes and is tasked with administering the work force development program. Passed House; Assigned to Senate Business, Labor and Technology, a hearing date is not listed on the printed calendar.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1116: Time Share Sales and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act

On January 20, 2012, Rep. Carole Murray and Sen. Jeanne Nicholson introduced HB 12-1116 – Concerning Deceptive Trade Practices Related to Time Share Resale Transactions. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill amends provisions of the “Colorado Consumer Protection Act” relating to time share transactions and, in particular, transactions involving resale time shares. The bill requires entities that provide time share resale services to disclose the following information to the owner of the resale time share, and makes failure to disclose the information a deceptive trade practice:

  • Contact information for the time share resale entity and any agent or third-party service provider who will perform any time share resale services for the entity;
  • A legal description of the resale time share;
  • A description of the method or documentation by which the transfer of the resale time share will be completed;
  • If the owner of the resale time share will retain any interest in the resale time share, a description of the interests retained by the owner of the resale time share;
  • A listing of any fees, costs, or other consideration that the owner of the resale time share must pay or reimburse for performance of the time share resale service;
  • A statement that the time share resale entity and its affiliates and agents will not collect from the owner of the resale time share any fees, costs, or other consideration until the entity provides the owner a copy of the recorded deed clearly demonstrating the transfer of the resale time share and a written acknowledgment from the association of time share owners or other responsible person that the time share resale entity has complied with the association’s policies governing the transfer of resale time shares, if any;
  • The date by which all acts sufficient to transfer the resale time share in accordance with the time share resale transfer agreement are estimated to be completed, which should be within 180 days after entering the agreement;
  • A statement as to whether any person, including the owner of the resale time share, may occupy, rent, exchange, or otherwise exercise any form of use of the resale time share during the term of the time share resale transfer agreement;
  • The name of any person, other than the owner of the resale time share, who will receive any rents, profits, or other consideration or thing of value, if any, generated from the transfer of the applicable resale time share or the use of the applicable resale time share during the term of the time share resale transfer agreement;
  • A statement detailing the owner’s responsibilities in the event the entity does not transfer ownership of the resale time share within 180 days after entering the agreement;
  • A statement that the time share resale entity will notify the specified persons or entities, in writing, when ownership of the resale time share is transferred.

The bill defines the following activities as deceptive trade practices in the advertisement or sale of a time share or the provision of a resale time share service:

  • Making false or misleading statements in connection with a time share resale service;
  • Making false or misleading statements concerning the method or source from which the name, address, telephone number, or other contact information of the owner was obtained;
  • Making false or misleading statements concerning the identity of the time share resale service entity or that entity’s affiliates or the terms and conditions upon which the time share or the time share resale services are offered

The bill defines the following terms: “Resale time share,” “time share resale entity,” “time share resale service,” and “time share resale transfer agreement.” On February 9, the Economic and Business Development Committee took testimony and laid the bill over for action on Tuesday, February 21 at 1:30 p.m.

Since this summary, the bill was amended and referred to the House Committee of the Whole.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1114: Modifications to Laws Prohibiting Stalking

On January 20 2012, Rep. Millie Hamner and Sen. Gail Schwartz introduced HB 12-1114 – Concerning the Crime of Stalking. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill makes changes to the crime of stalking. Under the bill, a summons shall not be issued in lieu of an arrest for a charge of stalking. Before the defendant is released on bail for a stalking charge, the court must state the terms of the protection order, and the defendant must acknowledge the order. In a stalking case, the prosecutor can request a hearing to modify the protection order. The bill makes technical corrections to the crime of stalking. On February 16, the Judiciary Committee amended the bill and referred it to the full House for consideration on 2nd Reading.

Since this summary, the Second Reading in the House was laid over daily.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1110: Appraisal Management Companies for Real Estate Appraisers

On January 20, 2012, Rep. Angela Williams and Sen. Morgan Carroll introduced HB 12-1110 – Concerning the Regulation of Appraisal Management Companies. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

In compliance with federal law, Colorado currently requires the licensing of real estate appraisers. In order to promote enhanced consumer protection, recently adopted federal guidelines now require mortgage lenders to use entities known as appraisal management companies, which hire licensed real estate appraisers, to value property for lending purposes. Appraisal management companies are not currently subject to regulation under Colorado law.

The bill authorizes the board of real estate appraisers in the division of real estate in the department of regulatory agencies to regulate appraisal management companies. Necessary terminology is defined and the registration of appraisal management companies is required. The bill sets forth the requirements for registration and exemptions for certain types of activities. The bill amends the section creating the board of real estate appraisers by adding a member who is an officer or employee of an appraisal management company and subtracting one public member. Requirements for owners and controlling persons of appraisal management companies are established, including a requirement that certain persons submit information, including fingerprints, for criminal history record checks. The bill sets forth prohibited activities and grounds for disciplinary action against appraisal management companies and owners and controlling persons. Administrative and criminal penalties for violations are established, and the board of real estate appraisers is granted the power to administer the provisions of the bill.

The bill requires real estate appraisers to maintain errors and omissions insurance. Appraisal management companies are required to post with the board a surety bond in the amount of $25,000.

The bill makes conforming amendments to existing statutes to make them consistent with the changes made in the bill. The bill is assigned to the Economic and Business Development Committee; the bill is scheduled for committee review on Tuesday, February 21 at 1:30 p.m.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Tenth Circuit: Officers Lacked Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause to Detain and Arrest; Qualified Immunity Properly Denied

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Romero v. Story on Thursday, February 23, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. Respondent brought suit against Petitioner law enforcement officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force. The district court denied Petitioners’ claim to qualified immunity in the context of summary judgment, and they appealed.

The Court concluded that Petitioners lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Respondent for the vandalism and lacked probable cause to arrest Respondent for flight or evasion, “thereby violating [Respondent]’s constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest. The district court, therefore, properly denied Petitioners’ motion for qualified immunity. However, the district court did not evaluate whether the force was excessive, and so the Court vacated the denial of qualified immunity as to Respondent’s excessive force claim and remanded to the district court to evaluate the excessive force claim separate and independent from the unlawful arrest claim.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 2/23/12

On Thursday, February 23, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Whitmore v. Miller

United States v. Celio

Berry v. Mission Group Kansas, Inc.

United States v. Grose

Atkins v. Sweetwater County Sheriff’s Office

Ali v. Province

BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. v. C.D. Brown Construction, Inc.

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.