employer - Gordon Law Group, LLP

New Colorado Wage Law Expands Enforcement Methods and Coverage

Gordon Law Group — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 00:21:31 GMT

Employees in Colorado will have increased rights under the state’s Wage Protection Act of 2014. The law has been expanded to give the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) more power to pursue wage claims on behalf of the employee. The new law also includes the expansion of the state’s wage payment law to include additional types of claims. Both changes are great news for employees in Colorado and they apply to nearly every private employer in the state.

Significantly, an employee who has not been paid minimum wage can now recover attorneys’ fees in addition to the unpaid wages and costs. Employers are now also subject to a recordkeeping requirement and employees are allowed access to these records.

Furthermore, under the old law, employees were required to make a complaint within 60 days if they were not paid their wages. However, from January 1, 2015, employees have two years to file a complaint and wages can be recovered from the date the wages were owed. In addition, the CDLE now have the power to fine employers if they do not pay all earned wages.

If you have any questions about the wage laws in Colorado or in your state, please contact us today.

Who is Your Employer?

Gordon Law Group — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:29:25 GMT

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects workers linked to a disabled person. However, it only applies to companies with 15 or more staff. In contrast, Massachusetts employment discrimination statute extends coverage to companies with six or more staff. Under the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Flagg v. Alimed, workers are safe from discrimination, even in small firms. This decision confirmed that companies cannot punish a worker simply because a loved one has a disability.

What Happened in the Case

Hickton’s wife battled a brain tumor. She stayed in the hospital for long periods. The illness created major medical expenses. During one hospital stay, his company fired him. It cancelled his family health policy instantly. Hickton claimed his company fired him because of his wife’s disability. He also argued the company broke state discrimination law by firing him due to his link to a disabled person. The court reviewed the case carefully. Later, it ruled for Hickton and confirmed the firing was illegal under state law.

Why This Ruling Matters for Workers

The decision closed a long-standing loophole. It protected workers who care for disabled family members. It also confirmed that influence or company size cannot block disability-association rights. Most importantly, the ruling strengthened job security, healthcare access, and legal protection for families who depend on employee income. Courts now check job actions based on facts, not excuses. Therefore, companies must treat their workers fairly and legally, especially when a disability is in the family.

How to Know If This Law Covers You

If a company has six or more staff, job discrimination rules apply. This includes executives, exempt professionals, and managers. Workers may use sick leave for personal illness, family illness, public health alerts, or school closures. As a result, companies cannot remove wages or benefits using small-firm claims. The law protects you if your job record, discipline, pay, and policies come from that business.

What to Do If You Face Association-Based Discrimination

Save employment records and firing proof. Track health policy cancellation dates. Request a pay and benefits review early. Speak to a trained attorney instantly if you believe a company fired you due to your link to a disabled person. Acting fast protects your income, healthcare, and family future.

Final Takeaway

The court confirmed that association-based discrimination is illegal in Massachusetts. A company cannot fire you or cancel your benefits because you care for a disabled loved one. This decision strengthened worker dignity, expanded legal safety, and protected family health access when jobs end unfairly.

Outside Investor May Be Liable for Payment of Wages

Gordon Law Group — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:32:12 GMT

Who is an employer under the Massachusetts Wage Act? It’s a question we commonly face in representing employees in their disputes with employers over wages. A recent decision has recognized that investors who involve themselves closely in management and decision making – especially a decision not to pay wages – may have personal liability for the failures.

In O’Leary v. Henn, a former employee brought suit against an investor for the employee’s. The investor was a 40% owner and outside director of the corporation. The employee claimed the investor’s role in the management of company affairs, including personnel matters, made him a de facto employer under the statute and thus liable for non-payment of wages by the corporation. The investor moved to dismiss the employee’s lawsuit for failure to state a claim on the grounds that he did not meet the definitional criteria of an “employer” under the statute. But, a Massachusetts Superior Court found for the employee, finding that his allegations regarding the investor’s role in the management of the corporation raised sufficient issues to satisfy the standard of review.

The Wage Act defines the term “employer” as:

the president and treasurer of a privately held corporation, together with “any officers or agents having management of such corporation”; and
any officer of a public corporation “whose duty it is to pay money, approve, audit or verify payrolls, or perform any other official act relative to payment of any public employees.”

Bottom line: Management and investors must take seriously the obligations to pay wages in Massachusetts.