Samuel Perez worked as an hourly employee at a fast‑food restaurant operated by By the Rockies, LLC between 2016 and 2017. Several years after his employment ended, Perez filed a civil action asserting violations of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The claim alleged that By the Rockies, LLC failed to provide required meal and rest breaks during shifts, resulting in unpaid wages.
Perez brought his claim solely under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. He did not assert a claim under the Colorado Wage Claim Act.
By the Rockies, LLC and Duane Layton moved to dismiss the action as untimely. The motion acknowledged that the Colorado Minimum Wage Act does not contain an express statute of limitations. The motion asserted, however, that the limitations period set forth in the Colorado Wage Claim Act should apply because both statutes address unpaid wages.
The district court agreed with that position. Applying the limitations period contained in the Wage Claim Act, the court concluded that Perez’s claim was time‑barred and dismissed the case.
Perez appealed the dismissal to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The appeal focused on which statute of limitations applied to a private cause of action brought under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.
The central question was whether the limitations period in the Wage Claim Act applied to claims brought under the Minimum Wage Act, or whether a different statutory limitations period governed.
The Court of Appeals examined several statutory provisions. The Wage Claim Act is codified in article 4 of title 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Its limitations provision applies to actions brought pursuant to that article.
The Minimum Wage Act is codified in article 6 of title 8. The Minimum Wage Act does not contain its own statute of limitations.
The court also considered section 13‑80‑103.5, which establishes a six‑year statute of limitations for actions to recover liquidated debts or determinable amounts of money.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the statutory language de novo. It concluded that the limitations provision in the Wage Claim Act applies only to actions brought under article 4 and does not extend to claims brought under article 6.
The court determined that Perez’s Minimum Wage Act claim sought recovery of a determinable amount of money and therefore fell within the scope of section 13‑80‑103.5. Because the Minimum Wage Act contains no limitations provision, the court concluded that the six‑year limitations period applied.
The court rejected the argument that the nature of the claim required importing the Wage Claim Act’s shorter limitations period. It reasoned that the legislature chose to impose different limitations periods for different wage‑related statutes and did not include language extending the Wage Claim Act’s limitations provision to Minimum Wage Act claims.
The court also noted that applying different limitations periods to different wage statutes was consistent with the overall statutory scheme.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of Perez’s claim and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation of the applicable statute of limitations.
If you’re dealing with wage disputes, employment‑related claims, or other labor and employment issues, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles labor and employment matters. Reach out to our team to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your situation.