June 26, 2019

Colorado Court of Appeals: Hearing Board Erroneously Judged Conduct Subjectively, Not Objectively

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in City & County of Denver v. Gutierrez on Thursday, May 19, 2016.

Silver Gutierrez is a captain with the Denver Sheriff’s Department (DSD) and is on the board of the Denver Sheriff’s Foundation. Cheryl Arabalo is also a DSD captain and board member for the Foundation. On August 26, 2010, Arabalo went to Gutierrez’s office. Gutierrez was on the phone but he gestured for Arabalo to lift up her shirt and expose her breasts and then to sit on his lap. Two months later, Arabalo filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, alleging sexual harassment.

A hearing officer with the DSD Internal Affairs Bureau found that this type of behavior was prevalent among board members, who had a “locker room” culture and frequently engaged in sexualized behavior with each other. The DSD suspended Gutierrez for 75 days for violations of several Departmental Orders (DOs), but a hearing board reduced the suspension to 30 days. The hearing board decided that while Gutierrez’s conduct violated some of the DOs, it did not satisfy the criteria for the most egregious conduct.

The City appealed the hearing board’s decision to the district court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The district court determined the board had abused its discretion by applying a subjective standard rather than an objective standard to Gutierrez’s conduct. The district court remanded to the hearing board to reconsider, and Gutierrez appealed.

On appeal, the court of appeals agreed with the district court that, although the hearing board stated it was using objective criteria, it actually evaluated Gutierrez’s conduct using subjective standards. The hearing board considered the Foundation board’s “locker room” atmosphere and sexualized behavior in finding that Gutierrez’s conduct was not that bad. The court of appeals found this was in error, and the hearing board should have viewed the conduct as it would appear to an outside observer.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court and remanded to the hearing board for determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

SB 12-174: Authorization of Alternate Appeal Processes for Property Valuation Appeals in the City and County of Denver

On April 20, 2012, Sen. Mike Johnston and Rep. Dan Pabon introduced SB 12-174 – Concerning the Creation of a Pilot Alternate Property Tax Valuation Protest and Appeal Procedure for the City and County of Denver. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Currently, the county board of equalization receives and hears petitions for appeal regarding the valuation for assessment of taxable property. The county board of equalization process has multiple filing deadlines and addresses valuation appeals in a single year. The board of county commissioners also receives and hears petitions for appeal and has jurisdiction over petitions for abatement or refund of taxes, including assessment of taxable property overvaluation. The board of county commissioners process has one filing deadline and can address valuation appeals, abatements, and refunds over multiple years.

The bill creates a pilot program that authorizes the governing body of the city and county of Denver, at the request of the assessor, to elect to use an alternate protest and appeal procedure that combines the multiple steps in the annual valuation dispute process through the county board of equalization into the single hearing and appeal process conducted by the board of county commissioners. The filing deadlines for tax petitions and for resolving valuation disputes are specified for the city and county of Denver to use the alternate protest and appeal procedure.

The bill also authorizes the city and county of Denver board of equalization and the board of county commissioners to request that the taxpayer that filed a petition, or the taxpayer’s representative, to be present at the hearing and requires each board to dismiss the petition with no right to appeal if the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s designee fails to be present at the hearing absent good cause. Assigned to the Finance Committee; the bill has not been scheduled for committee review.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Use in Violation of Zoning Ordinance Could Not Be Grandfathered Under New Zoning

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Walter G. Burkey Trust v. City and County of Denver on February 2, 2012.

Zoning Ordinance—Parking in Vacant Lot

Plaintiff Walter G. Burkey Trust (Trust) appealed a district court judgment affirming the decision of the Denver Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals (Board) upholding the citation issued to the Trust by the City and County of Denver (City) for violation of a zoning ordinance regarding a vacant lot used for parking. The judgment was affirmed.

The Trust owns a vacant lot at 1476 King Street in Denver (lot). The lot was located in a district zoned R-2 before being rezoned to MS-2 in 2007. In the mid-1980s, the Trust used the lot for surface parking for the adjacent businesses the Trust owned. Surface parking was not a legal use in the R-2 zoned district. The lot was never legally authorized for parking before the 2007 amendment.

In 1987, the City issued the Trust two citations for using the lot in violation of the zoning ordinance. On November 18, 2008, the City issued an Order to Cease and Desist (Order) parking use of the lot. The basis for the Order was that under the new MS-2 zoning, surface parking lots were not permitted unless they were existing legal uses.

The Trust appealed the Order to the Board, which found in favor of the City. The Trust sought judicial review in district court under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), and the court upheld the Board. The Trust appealed.

Review is for exceeding jurisdiction or abuse of discretion. The Trust argued that, pursuant to the amended zoning ordinance, its lot use was converted to a legal nonconforming use because the lot and its use had existed before the 2007 amendment. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court found that both the City’s and the Trust’s arguments were reasonable because the language of the ordinance was ambiguous. When this is the case, the Court must defer to the Board’s interpretation, as long as there is a reasonable basis for it.

Here, the record demonstrated that the lot never was used legally as a parking lot before the 2007 amendment. The Board’s interpretation that the 2007 ordinance grandfathered prior legal uses, but not existing illegal uses, has a reasonable basis. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

This summary is published here courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer. Other summaries for the Colorado Court of Appeals on February 2, 2012, can be found here.

Point / Counterpoint: Initiative 300 Is a Bad Law for Denver and Not What the Doctor Ordered

Editor’s Note: this Point/Counterpoint series will focus on Initiative 300, which appears on the November 2011 ballot in Denver. The initiative aims to provide paid sick and safe time for Denver workers. Click here to read Initiative 300 for yourself. The Colorado Bar Association CLE also welcomes your comments on the issue. No matter what type of law you practice or how you come down on the issue, please feel free to continue the discussion in the comments section below.

The other side of this Point/Counterpoint can be found here.

I would like to start by thanking Linda Meric for agreeing to submit a point-counterpoint to the Colorado Bar Association CLE. I have known Linda since she worked for the Service Employees International Union. We have been on opposing sides many times, and also agree on even more issues. Unfortunately when it comes to Initiative 300, the safe and sick leave proposal in Denver, it seems we find ourselves in disagreement again.

If passed, proponents would have voters believe they won’t be served by sick waiters, eat food cooked by sick chefs, or have their temperature taken by sick nurses. If you’re reading this on the Colorado Bar Association CLE’s website, you are probably an attorney. You almost certainly work in an office that offers sick leave. Yet, don’t we all know people who could stay home but come to work with every cold? Initiative 300 won’t change that.

That’s why opponents include the Colorado Hospital Initiative, which points out this law does not translate into a healthier workforce. Additional opponents include Denver Mayor Hancock, Governor Hickenlooper, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Denver, the Colorado Black Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Women’s Chamber of Commerce, and the list goes on. A detailed list is available at the No-On-300 campaign’s website.

Initiative 300 Is Bad Law

I’d like to be very clear. I know Linda and her colleagues only want what is best for Denver. As an attorney who has represented employers for 20 years, I too have tried to make our workplaces more productive, more profitable, and more secure. Even if we could afford Initiative 300 (and as I explain below, we can’t), it’s poorly drafted and invites unproductive litigation.

Employers would be required to provide a half-hour of paid “sick and safe” leave for every 30 hours worked. “Safe and sick leave” would be capped at either 72 hours (9 days) per employee per year, for employers of 10 or more people, or 40 hours (5 days) per year, for employers of fewer than 10 people.

Employees who work 40 or more hours per year in the City and County of Denver would be eligible for this new leave even if they only work part-time or temporarily. As opponents correctly point out, Initiative 300, therefore, would single out Denver employers. Only companies that employ people within Denver would be required to provide this leave. Why disadvantage Denver’s employers in this increasingly competitive environment?

Worse, in an example of the Initiative’s poor drafting, it would apply to any company that employs someone for more than 40 hours in Denver per year. A company that is located outside Denver but has people working inside Denver would trigger the law. Consider a simple pizza restaurant on the edge of Denver in, say, Aurora. This law would reach out and purports to command compliance by that company. How is that even possible legally? Even more troubling, none of the company’s other employees would be entitled to this leave, only the delivery person who accumulates more than 40 hours of work in Denver per year.

Perhaps one example of poor drafting makes the point best. Unlike any other employment law, Initiative 300 would create a legal presumption of retaliation. If a company disciplines, much less discharges, a worker within 90 days after an individual takes such leave, retaliation is presumed. Leave can be taken in as little as 1-hour increments, which means an employee can take leave frequently throughout the year. In other words, there may never be a 90+ day period of time after an employee takes leave to shield employers from this presumption.

Large employers and their counsel should not ignore Initiative 300. They may feel that since their company/client already provides paid sick leave, Initiative 300 won’t change anything. Not true. It will have a major cost even to such employers. Not only would it create this presumption of retaliation, but the initiative will require additional leave. Proposed section 28-244(a) says only that this new leave does not displace any leave policy that “is more generous than the one required herein.” The proposed Act does not define what is “more generous” or how this can be determined.

Indeed, no employer is currently offering the same levels of safe or sick leave that the Initiative would require. For example, “safe” leave is defined in section 28-237(a)(2) of Initiative 300 to include a number of things for which paid leave is not currently available at most employers, such as time “making the employee’s home secure from the perpetrator of the act of domestic abuse, stalking or sexual assault or other crime involving domestic violence or seeking new housing to escape said perpetrator.”

Likewise, section 28-237(a)(1) of Initiative 300 defines “sick” leave to include additional kinds of paid leave that are not currently available at most employers, such as time spent caring for a family member. This would effectively constitute paid FMLA leave.

San Francisco

Comparisons to San Francisco’s sick/safe leave law are incorrect. Denver’s proposed law, unlike San Francisco’s, would actually prohibit an employer from requiring documentation of the need for leave if the employee takes the leave in blocks of less than 3 consecutive days. San Francisco’s law also does not raise the “pizza delivery” problem. Lastly, San Francisco’s law allows employers and unions to collectively bargain different or even no safe/sick leave rights, unlike Denver’s.

Initiative 300 Is Just Too Costly

The costs of this initiative will be high. The City and County of Denver has calculated its costs, alone, will be $690,050. A small employer can anticipate just over $1,000 per year per employee, and an employer of 10 or more, more than twice that. Larger employers will effectively be paying the cost of one more worker for every 30 they currently employ.

Proponents concede Initiative 300 will be costly. They challenge the $690,050 estimate and recently commissioned their own analysis. Their report still ended up with an estimate of $277,179 for the cost to the City.

Whether it’s $690,050 or $277,179, the Mayor and the majority of City Council are right: It is too much at a time when the City is struggling to meet budget.

In short, Initiative 300 is a well-intentioned but poorly drafted law. It is exactly not what the doctor prescribed for Denver’s economy.

Bill C. Berger, Esq., is a shareholder at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLC. His practice emphasizes the representation of management and employers in labor and employment law matters, including both preventive counseling and litigation. Reach him at (303) 223-1178.

The opinions and views expressed by contributors to CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Point / Counterpoint: Initiative 300 Is a Good Law that Provides for a Healthier Denver

Editor’s Note: this Point/Counterpoint series will focus on Initiative 300, which appears on the November 2011 ballot in Denver. The initiative aims to provide paid sick and safe time for Denver workers. Click here to read Initiative 300 for yourself. The Colorado Bar Association CLE also welcomes your comments on the issue. No matter what type of law you practice or how you come down on the issue, please feel free to continue the discussion in the comments section below.

The other side of this Point/Counterpoint can be found here.

Denver voters have the opportunity to make Denver a healthier place to live, stabilize working families, make businesses more productive, and strengthen the local economy by supporting Initiative 300. This measure will allow all workers employed in Denver to earn paid sick days to care for themselves or a family member when sick without jeopardizing their financial security.

Paid sick days will make Denver a healthier place to live and work.

There are 107,000 lower-wage workers in Denver who don’t have access to paid sick days – most have lots of interaction with the public at their jobs in restaurants, childcare centers, and nursing homes – and that puts everyone’s health at risk.   When they’re sick, they have to choose whether to go to work sick and risk spreading contagion or struggle paying the bills at the end of the month.  Especially in this tough economy, that’s a choice no one can afford to make.

Three out of four restaurant workers in Denver have no paid sick days and face this decision every time they get sick.  Laura, a Denver coffeeshop barista, knows she shouldn’t have reported to work with a severe cold last winter, but she did anyway to pay that month’s rent.  And Laura isn’t alone.  A national survey of restaurant workers found that nearly two-thirds have cooked or served food while sick, and that’s unhealthy for them and their co-workers – and you, their customers.

When workers are able to earn paid sick days, it makes a healthier community for all of us to live in. That’s why more than 160 Colorado public health groups, faith leaders, community organizations, labor groups, elected officials, and businesses are asking Denver voters to support Initiative 300.

Paid sick days make working families more secure.

Workers can take care of themselves, get preventive care, and help their children and other family members recuperate when they’re sick.  With paid sick days, workers don’t have to choose between being good employees and good parents.

Stronger, more secure families mean better schools for our children.  Parents with paid sick days are less likely to send a sick child to school.  When their parents are able to care for them at home, sick children get well sooner and reduce the risk of spreading illness to their classmates and teachers.  And they do better in school.

Paid sick days are good for businesses.

Businesses benefit because paid sick days decrease the spread of illness in the workplace, increase worker productivity, and protect customers, far outweighing the modest cost of implementing the policy.  In fact, paid sick days will save Denver businesses nearly $600 per year for each full-time worker by improving productivity and reducing turnover.

Paid sick days strengthen the economy by helping workers keep their jobs.

Economists say that job retention policies like paid sick days help reduce unemployment and strengthen the economy.  In San Francisco, which adopted a similar paid sick days law in 2007, two in three businesses now support the law; six in seven report no negative impact on profitability – including the restaurant association which at first opposed the law.  Since then, job growth in San Francisco has outpaced surrounding counties and the city was just named one of the top three in the world to do business.

Initiative 300 is easy to implement.

Business lobbyists have a long list of complaints about Initiative 300 – not one of which has been a problem in other cities with similar laws.  Paid sick days laws have passed legal scrutiny and challenge, and have proven easy to implement, easy to track, and haven’t led to problems for employers.

Some specific legal points about Initiative 300, which is patterned on laws passed in other cities:

  • Ordinance enforcement is in the Agency for Human Rights and Community Relations because it ALREADY has authority to conduct all aspects of enforcement – taking complaints, conducting investigations, holding hearings, providing conciliation, issuing orders, and imposing fines.
  • Municipal laws routinely apply to all businesses doing business within a city.  Initiative 300EXCLUDES employees working less than 40 hours in Denver, those with just a casual connection to the city.  This provision was added to protect business on the advice of those implementing San Francisco’s law, which also exempts workers with minimal contact with the city through regulation.
  • The commonplace 90-day non-retaliation protection ONLY applies to process, protecting those using legal remedies or cooperating with legal procedures.
  • Initiative 300 is clear that leave already provided by employers counts for purposes of the ordinance, as long as the leave is the same amount, and can be used for the same purposes.
  • State law already requires employers to offer unpaid leave for domestic violence reasons.  Under Initiative 300, employees can use paid time they accrue to get safe, but the ordinance doesn’t add leave for those purposes.
  • Initiative 300, like San Francisco regulations and other paid sick days laws, allows employers to require documentation after absences of 3 days.
  • Initiative 300, like the San Francisco and most other paid sick days laws, allows employers and unions to do something different or opt out of the ordinance through collective bargaining.
  • Nothing in Initiative 300 prevents employers from requiring employees to call in when sick, disciplining bad employees, or allowing shift-swapping.

The benefits of paid sick days far outweigh the cost.

The modest city investment – estimated by independent analysts at $277,000 – to implement Initiative 300 is small compared to the costs of not having paid sick days, including public health costs of sick workers on the job, increased emergency room usage, increased public assistance costs, and educational costs.

Who wants workers to be forced to work sick and spread contagion while they’re cooking and serving our food in restaurants, and taking care of our children and grandparents in schools, child care centers, and nursing homes?  Initiative 300 will make Denver a healthier city for all of us.

Linda Meric is the Denver-based Executive Director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women, a membership organization of low-wage women working to improve policy on workplace issues. 9to5 Colorado is one of the 160+ organizations in the Campaign for a Healthy Denver. Click here for more information.

The opinions and views expressed by contributors to CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Jennifer Gokenbach: Proposed Denver Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance – Nothing To Sneeze At

Promoting public health? Sounds good. Making sure working adults stay at home when they are sick? I’m on board. Flexible and supportive working environment? Of course, who doesn’t want that.

Voters in San Francisco, Washington D.C., Milwaukee, and Connecticut were motivated by these ideals when passing paid sick leave ordinances or bills in their cities or state (although Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker nullified Milwaukee’s bill after it was passed). You can bet voters in Denver, too, will be equally motivated by these ideals and the desire to help working families and low income wage earners when deciding Ballot Initiative 300 in November 2011.

But, what exactly is the proposed Denver Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance (PDF), and is it really a good idea for Denver? As with any new legislation, the text of the legislation itself is where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and provides critical insight into the protections afforded, as well as the possible unintended consequences.

Key Provisions of Denver’s Proposed Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance

  • Provides paid sick and safe time leave for all employees within the geographic boundaries of the City and County of Denver, including part-time and temporary employees, who work at least 40 hours a year (federal and state government employees and union members are exempt).
  • All Colorado employers who employ eligible workers in the City and County of Denver must comply, regardless of size, but new businesses are exempt during their first year of operation.
  • Paid leave would accrue at the rate of 1 hour for every 30 hours worked.
  • Large employers, defined as employers with 10 or more employees, must offer up to 72 hours, or 9 days, of paid leave each calendar year.
  • Small employers, defined as those with less than 10 employees, must offer up to 40 hours, or 5 days, of paid leave each calendar year.
  • Up to 72 hours, or 9 days, of paid leave may be carried over from year to year.
  • Paid leave may be taken after 90 days of employment, and may be taken in as few as 1 hour increments.
  • No advance notice is required for an employee to take leave.
  • No documentation is required until the employee takes 3 or more consecutive days off.
  • Employers cannot require employees to search for, or provide, a replacement worker to cover the hours missed.
  • Employers cannot “take retaliatory personnel action or discriminate” against employees exercising their sick and safe time rights.
  • Paid leave can be taken for:
    • An employee’s own mental or physical illness, injury, health condition, need for medical care or treatment, or need for a medical procedure or preventative medical care;
    • To care for an employee’s family member’s mental or physical illness, injury, health condition, need for medical care or treatment, or who needs a medical procedure or preventative medical care;
    • The closure of the employee’s place of business, or to care for a child whose school or place of care has been closed, due to a public health emergency;
    • To seek a civil protection order to prevent domestic abuse pursuant to Section 13-14-102, C.R.S.;
    • To obtain medical care or mental health counseling, or both, for the employee or employee’s children to address physical or psychological injuries from domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault, or other crime involving domestic violence;
    • To make the employee’s home secure, or to seek new housing, due to domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault, or other crime involving domestic violence; and
    • To seek legal assistance to address issues arising from domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault, or other crime involving domestic violence, and attend or prepare for court-related proceedings.

Unclear and Potentially Troublesome Provisions

1.  Definition of “Family Member” Too Broad

Although seemingly modeled after the San Francisco and D.C. bills, Denver’s new paid leave ordinance includes a far broader definition of “family member” than any prior bill passed. It includes:

  • A person related by blood, marriage or legal adoption, including a child, parent, spouse, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild of the employee;
  • A foster child, parent, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild of the employee;
  • A child to whom the employee stands in loco parentis or for whom the employee is the legal guardian;
  • The employee’s domestic partner;
  • The spouse of an employee’s child, parent, sibling, or grandparent;
  • A legal guardian of the employee or a person who stood in loco parentis to the employee when he or she was a minor;
  • A parent of the employee’s spouse; or
  • Any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close relationship is equivalent to a family relationship.

The spouse of an employee’s sibling? Call me crazy, but I think it is a real problem to obligate a small business owner to provide paid time off for an employee to take his or her sister’s husband to a routine doctor’s appointment. Or, to leave open all the possible individuals covered under the vague phrase “any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close relationship is equivalent to a family relationship.” I wonder when we would see the first complaint involving a worker claiming that his or her college roommate is “like family.”

2.  Unclear How to Count Number of Employees or Who May Be Eligible

It is unclear how employers will be required to count their number of employees to determine the amount of leave benefits that must be offered.  The definition of employer includes all businesses in the State of Colorado.  But, the definition of an eligible employee is anyone employed within the geographic boundaries of the City and County of Denver.  So, for purposes of determining the amount of leave benefits, are employers required to count all employees in Colorado, or only those employed within the City and County of Denver?

Likewise, if employees need only be employed in the City of County of Denver for 40 hours a year to be eligible, is a worker whose main office is located elsewhere in Colorado, but who travels to Denver frequently throughout the year for deliveries or to conduct business, eligible for the mandated leave benefits?

3.  No Advance Notice Required

Where other paid sick leave bills expressly authorize employers to require reasonable notice to be given where practicable when an employee’s need for leave arises, Denver’s new proposed ordinance vaguely says that employers “may not impose unreasonable barriers to use of paid sick and safe time.”  What does that mean?  An “unreasonable barrier” in one instance could be reasonable under different circumstances.  The use of such vague language, rather than clear language allowing employers to require advance notice where practicable, in my view, tips the scale of this legislation away from fair and balanced, and only invites litigation.

4.  Employers Prohibited From Requesting Documentation

Additionally, where other sick leave bills allow employers to require appropriate documentation to support the leave to prevent abuse, Denver’s proposed ordinance prohibits employers from requesting any documentation, until after 3 consecutive days of absence.

5.  Employers Already Offering Generous Leave Benefits Not Necessarily Exempt

Finally, even though the new ordinance attempts to exempt employers who already provide vacation or personal time off (PTO) in an amount equivalent or greater than the mandated 9 (or 5) days of leave benefits, the rub is that employers must allow the vacation or PTO “under the same conditions as paid sick and safe time” – meaning that if the other leave benefits require prior notice or documentation, this new leave bank must be provided in addition.  This is another major difference between Denver’s proposed sick leave ordinance than those passed in San Francisco, D.C. and Connecticut. At least in those ordinances or bills, employers who offered more leave days than that legislatively mandated, were deemed in compliance, without all the other restrictions.

Food for Thought

The Agency for Human Rights and Community Relations (staffed currently by 10 people) in Denver would be responsible for implementing and administering this new law, taking complaints, conducting investigations, holding hearings, providing conciliation, issuing orders, and imposing fines. With only 10 individuals currently in the Agency, the implementation of this new ordinance along with a potential influx of complaints may likely require expansion, using already-tight taxpayer dollars.

Everyone knows that successful, long-term and mutually beneficial employment relationships require employees and employers to work together, and there are a multitude of good employers in Denver and throughout Colorado who bend over backwards to keep their workforce happy with generous benefit packages. I am certainly not advocating that employees come to work sick or face losing their job if their child is sent home from school sick.

But, is imposing overly broad, vague legislation with unusually restrictive obligations on large and small employers alike, however good in principal, what Denver needs in this economic climate? Governor John Hickenlooper and Mayor Michael Hancock say no, and it is now up to Denver voters to decide in November.

Jennifer Gokenbach is Of Counsel at Ogletree Deakins and focuses her practice on management side trial work and counseling on a wide range of employment law issues. She blogs at Colorado Employer’s Law Blog, where this post originally appeared on September 10, 2011.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.

Mark Your Calendars: Two Denver Mayoral Debates to be Held Tuesday, April 19

Denver’s mayoral election is fast approaching. Ballots will be mailed on April 14 for the May 3 election; should no candidate receive more than fifty percent of the vote in May, a run-off between the top two vote-getters will be on June 7. Before you cast your vote, two Denver groups will be hosting debates with the top tier candidates on Tuesday, April 19. The events are open to the public and will be a great way to get informed about each candidate.

  • Warwick Denver Hotel
    • 1776 Grant Street
      Denver, CO 80203
    • 4:00 – 6:00 pm
    • Hosted by Law Week Colorado and co-sponsored by the Colorado Women’s Bar Association in conjunction with other legal organizations and specialty bar associations.
    • Confirmed candidate participants, to date: Carol Boigon, Michael Hancock, Doug Linkhart, James Mejia, Chris Romer, and Theresa Spahn.
  • Seawell Grand Ballroom of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts
    • 1101 13th Street
      Denver, CO 80202
    • 7:00 – 9:00 pm
    • Hosted by “Colorado Now with Aaron Harber”
    • Confirmed candidate participants, to date: Carol Boigon, Michael Hancock, Doug Linkhart, James Mejia, and Chris Romer.
    • For more information click here, and to RSVP up to six seats click here.

Don’t miss these exciting debates and your chance to learn more about the candidates firsthand!

Denver County Court Civil Division Changes Hours of Operation

Effective September 7, the hours of operation for the Denver Count Court Civil Division are 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.