Resolving an issue that has generated disagreement among federal judges, Colorado’s second-highest court concluded that alleged violations of the state’s minimum wage law are subject to a six-year window for filing a claim and not the much shorter window that applies to other types of wage complaints.

By 2-1, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals noted last month the Colorado Wage Claim Act explicitly includes a two- or three-year statute of limitations, but lawmakers omitted similar language from the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. Therefore, the broader six-year window applied for raising alleged minimum wage violations.

In the underlying case, Samuel Perez filed a proposed class action lawsuit against his employer, By the Rockies, LLC, for allegedly refusing to pay its Carl’s Jr. employees for required rest and meal breaks. Perez filed suit in 2022, despite having left his job in 2017.

After looking at competing legal interpretations by federal judges in recent years, an Arapahoe County judge dismissed the case, persuaded that Perez needed to file within two or three years of the violation.

Case: Perez v. By the Rockies

Decided: November 16, 2023

Jurisdiction: Arapahoe County

Ruling: 2-1

Judges: Neeti V. Pawar (author)

David Furman

Terry Fox (dissent)

On appeal, Perez’s attorneys argued the Court of Appeals should not automatically apply the more restrictive statute of limitations from the broader wage act to the state’s minimum wage law.

“The Wage Claim Act covers all sorts of compensation. It covers paid commission, it covers vacation days, it covers pay deductions, it covers tips,” said attorney Brian D. Gonzales during oral arguments. “Conversely, the Minimum Wage Act covers things that aren’t covered in the Wage Claim Act.”

By the Rockies countered that Colorado lawmakers modeled the state’s wage legislation after its federal counterpart, which has a two-year statute of limitations.

For both state wage laws, “the Department of Labor has issued one set of regulations to essentially rule them all,” said attorney Veronica T. Hunter.

Judge Neeti V. Pawar observed that there may be legitimate policy reasons for allowing minimum wage claims specifically to proceed after a longer window.

“If somebody doesn’t get paid on the day they don’t get their rest break, they’re not gonna file a claim for $1.12,” she said. “Doesn’t it seem like six years would make more sense in order for the accrual of the claim itself to have some value?”

Ultimately, the panel’s majority, consisting of Pawar and Judge David Furman, did not address those policy arguments because the text made clear the narrower statute of limitations for the wage act did not encompass the minimum wage law.

Judge Terry Fox dissented, noting the majority’s interpretation drove a wedge not only between the two wage laws, but between Colorado law and its federal counterpart.

She was also persuaded by the latest interpretation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act out of federal court. In July, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez wrote that state regulations require employers to retain compensation records for three years, which made little sense if employees could sue after six years.

“(W)e are not precluded from adopting or borrowing from other courts’ well-reasoned analysis,” Fox added.

The case is Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC. et al.