Exceptionally misguided: HBs 1377, 1378

Monday, April 23, 2018

Two bills introduced late in this legislative session purport to protect employees – specifically female employees – from wage discrimination.  Instead, House Bills 1377 and 1378 paint a target on the Colorado businesses and invite trial lawyers to unleash a new wave of litigation against them.

HB 1377 (sponsored by Reps. James Coleman, D-Denver, and Brittany Petterson, D-Lakewood) would prohibit “seeking” information about a potential employee’s salary history.  But what makes this bill so exceptionally misguided is that it makes asking for that information a violation akin to illegal racial or gender discrimination.

That’s right – the sponsors of this bill believe that merely seeking information about a potential employee’s salary history is tantamount to refusing to hire someone because of their race or gender.

By defining salary history as a discriminatory practice, the bill creates an incentive for trial lawyers to sue employers, seeking a wide range of monetary damages, including punitive damages, and automatically forces employers to pay attorney fees and costs to any prevailing plaintiff.

Prevailing employers aren’t automatically entitled to recover their attorney fees and costs.  Even if a business has done nothing wrong, defending against a baseless lawsuit is costly!

If there was any doubt that these bills are far more about enriching trial lawyers than eliminating any pay disparity, HB 1378 should dispel them.  Sponsored by Rep. Jessie Danielson, D-Wheat Ridge, and Sens. Kerry Donovan, D-Vail, and Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, this bill removes the authority of the Department of Labor to penalize employers that pay women less than men for performing the same job and instead uses private litigation for enforcement.


And just as with HB 1377, it gets worse!  Next, the bill mandates that every business in Colorado must follow a specific legal procedure before promoting any of its employees.  No matter how many employees and no matter what the job, the proponents of this bill believe the State must micromanage day-to-day operations of private businesses – the economic engine of our state.

If this bill becomes law, an employer couldn’t simply give a promotion to a deserving employee – including a female employee – without first advertising the opportunity for promotion to all existing employees.

In the past year, Colorado has fallen to its worst alltime ranking (36th) by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Lawsuit Climate Index. Legislation like this shows that it could get worse!

 

 

 

Anti-arbitration bills will cost consumers, enrich trial lawyers

Monday, March 19, 2018

Anti-business extremists at the State Capitol would have Coloradans believe that giving up their "right to sue" in exchange for a more efficient, less adversarial process of dispute resolution is somehow playing into the hands of "big corporations." 

In fact, consumers and businesses alike have often found arbitration to be a better way to resolve disputes than long, drawn out lawsuits in which the only real winners are the lawyers who rack up hundreds of billable hours.

House Bills 1261 (sponsored by Rep. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora) and 1262 (Reps. Dominique Jackson, D-Aurora, and Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle) purport to bring "fairness" and "transparency" to arbitration proceedings.

In reality, they would make Colorado's arbitration system just as big a mess as our state's system of civil courts.

 


 

Many business contracts require arbitration as a means to settle disputes, rather that lawsuits. That's a choice that businesses and consumers deserve to make for themselves - without unnecessary meddling by politicians.

Arbitration can be cheaper and faster for both parties in a dispute, reducing costs for the largest driver of litigation costs - attorney fees. Arbitration can also be more flexible, less complex, more private and less hostile than endless litigation.

Instead, HBs 1261 and 1262 will make arbitration more difficult and more expensive by inviting litigation against arbitrators.

These bills are also likely to erode modest gains made by the Legislature last year to make it easier for homeowners and builders to resolve disputes over home construction problems and to reduce litigation costs that drive up home prices.

HB 1261 creates new standards for "impartiality" in an environment in which the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act, case law, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, and private contractual standards already establish ethical requirements on arbitrators. This isn't solving a problem. Instead, it's creating one!

HB 1262 creates disclosure requirements that violate contractual confidentiality provisions that typically benefit both parties in a dispute. The bill also creates a cloud over any contract containing an arbitration clause because, U.S. Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests, it will be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

It is important to note that judges and courts do police arbitrator impartiality by reviewing arbitration awards. A party that believes an arbitrator to be biased can ask a court to vacate the award. Ironically, these protections do not apply for judges who preside over lawsuits.

These bills would harm consumers by making arbitration more expensive, thereby leaving consumers at the mercy of trial lawyers and a costly, over-crowded civil litigation system.


 

Supreme Court upholds limits on wage claims, backing CCJL position

Monday, March 12, 2018

Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled that claims for disputed wages must be filed within the statute of limitations (either two or three years) and that the clock starts ticking "on the date that each set of wages first became due and payable—not on the date of separation."

The opinion, written by the court's newest member, Justice Melissa Hart — Yes, we were pleasantly surprised! — largely echoes the salient points submitted by CCJL in a friend of the court brief, authored by Chris Ottele and Sonia Anderson of Husch Blackwell, and which was joined by the Denver Metro Chamber and Building Jobs 4 Colorado.

As summarized by a blog:

The plaintiffs in Hernandez v. Ray Domenico Farms, Inc.had sought to exploit an unusual feature of the Colorado Wage Claim Act (the Wage Act). It allows employees to bring suit for unpaid wages under two separate provisions, depending on whether the employee is currently employed or no longer employed. Plaintiffs in this case had reasoned that the provision that applies to former employees revived claims that were time-barred under the provision that applies to current employees. If true, former employees could bring suit for unpaid wages dating to the beginning of their employment, possibly 20 or 30 years ago. 

[...]

On behalf of the Colorado Civil Justice League and other business interests, Husch Blackwell attorneys filed the only amicus brief in support of the employer. The Supreme Court’s opinion agreed with each of the positions set forth in Husch Blackwell’s amicus brief and disagreed with the briefs of the plaintiffs, their amici and, with respect to at least one issue, even the defendant employer.