In Colorado and most other states, employment operates on an “at-will” basis. This means that, unless the employee and employer have entered into an employment contract, employers can terminate employees for any reason, provided they, under recent Colorado legislation, give written notice of the termination and the reasons thereunder. Employees can also quit their job at any time, for any reason.

Indeed, at-will employment gives employers a lot of leeway to fire workers. However, there are two key exceptions where terminations may be illegal:

1.  Discrimination: Firing someone because of their membership in a protected class, such as race, religion, gender, or age, is prohibited under federal and Colorado anti-discrimination laws.

2.  Retaliation: It is illegal to fire someone in retaliation for engaging in legally protected activities, such as filing a sexual harassment complaint, participating in an EEOC investigation, or blowing the whistle on actual legal violations.  Employees must have engaged in protected activity for a retaliation claim to stick.

Simply complaining about a toxic work environment or difficult manager does not typically count as protected activity. Unless the complaints involved clear violations of discrimination, harassment, or other laws, employers can legally terminate for personality conflicts under at-will employment.

At-will employment gives Colorado employers lots of power. But workers still have legal protections against discriminatory and retaliatory termination. Understanding these protections is crucial for asserting your rights.

If you feel your termination violated state or federal employment laws, contact an attorney right away. For a free case evaluation, visit www.conduit.law or call 720-432-7032. A lawyer can assess your situation and help determine the best steps for either negotiating a settlement or bringing a formal claim. Don’t wait to get legal advice.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. Instead, this article serves as general information to help readers understand their rights under at-will employment in Colorado. Readers should consult with an attorney for advice regarding their individual situation.

Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to familial integrity when it comes to raising their children. This right can sometimes come into conflict with child welfare investigations by social services agencies.

Safety Plans, while well-intentioned, may violate a parent’s civil rights if not enacted properly. Safety Plans should have an end date, allow parents to comply and provide specific metrics for reunification, and require the department to provide oversight. Restricting a parent’s custody for months without these safeguards likely violates their right to due process.

If you feel your civil rights have been violated by a child welfare investigation, it’s important to consult an attorney. An experienced lawyer can advise you on the proper procedures and whether your constitutional rights have been infringed upon.

Contact Conduit Law today for a free consultation on your cas to discuss how they might be able to protect your right to familial integrity.

Disclaimer: This post discusses general information about legal principles but does not constitute legal advice. You should consult an attorney regarding the specifics of your case.

A recent court case highlights the complexities around challenging the constitutionality of gag orders. In the 2022 Colorado Court of Appeals case People in Interest of K.P., a parent was held in contempt for violating permanent protection orders in a dependency and neglect case. The parent tried to argue that the orders were unconstitutional prior restraints on her right to free speech.

However, the court ruled against the parent using the “collateral bar rule.” This rule states that if a party fails to timely appeal an order, they cannot later challenge its constitutionality without having first appealed it. Since the parent did not appeal the protection orders when they were first issued, the collateral bar rule prevented her constitutional challenge.

The court cited a blanket gag order as an example of something that would likely be unconstitutional. However, per the collateral bar rule, the order’s constitutionality could not be challenged if it was not appealed when first ordered.

This case shows that while gag orders can raise First Amendment issues, the collateral bar rule places strict limits on when those issues can be litigated. Parties must directly appeal gag orders if they want to preserve their ability to later argue the orders are unconstitutional. Appeals must happen in a timely manner, or the collateral bar rule will block subsequent constitutional claims.

Overall, this case highlights how crucial it is to promptly appeal questionable gag orders instead of waiting to challenge them down the road. The collateral bar rule creates stringent restrictions on revisiting orders that are not appealed right away. While gag orders can seem constitutionally dubious, affected parties must act quickly to preserve their ability to make First Amendment arguments.

Disclaimer: This article should not be construed as legal advice. For specific guidance on gag orders and your rights, consult an attorney at Conduit Law.

Parental alienation is a devastating issue that can have tragic consequences for children and families. As civil rights advocates, we are always looking for ways to support victims whose rights have been violated. Recently, we have been exploring potential legal avenues on behalf of parents experiencing parental alienation in child custody cases.

One heartbreaking example is the case of a child who died by suicide, where parental alienation by the mother was found to be a contributing factor. This case illustrates how damaging alienation can be to a child’s mental health and wellbeing. It is a stark reminder that parental alienation should be taken very seriously by family courts.

In considering legal options, we need to research further to identify viable civil rights claims. There are significant legal hurdles, including broad governmental immunities that preclude money damages in many instances. However, one potential option is seeking injunctive relief to compel state agencies to implement parental alienation research findings into child welfare regulations and family court policies and procedures.

Whether an injunction can be issued to force, for example, a state department of human services to begin considering parental alienation when setting forth regulations regarding how legal decisions should be made regarding the child, is most definitely uncharted territory and will certainly require additional research and consideration.

Crafting a successful legal strategy will require deep examination of the law and facts. We are committed to advocating zealously for parents facing alienation, within the bounds of legal ethics. However, it is important to note that this post contains general information, not legal advice regarding any specific case. Those dealing with parental alienation issues should consult with an attorney to discuss their particular situation and potential claims. We encourage any parent or family seeking legal counsel in a potential civil rights case involving parental alienation to visit www.conduit.law for a free case evaluation.

A major development occurred this week in an important civil rights case out of Arapahoe County, Colorado. Federal judge Charlotte N. Sweeney denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against Arapahoe County caseworker Robin Niceta, allowing the case to move forward.

The lawsuit was filed by parents including a mother and father who allege that Niceta violated their constitutional rights by making false claims about their parenting in order to remove their daughter from their custody. Niceta had the daughter removed without a court order or evidence of abuse, exploiting the significant power that caseworkers have over families.

Judge Sweeney’s ruling rejected the county’s argument that Niceta has qualified immunity from the lawsuit. This precedent-setting decision means Niceta can be held accountable for violating the parents’ and daughter’s civil rights. The court acknowledged that caseworkers cannot be permitted to forcibly separate parents and children based on unsubstantiated opinions and hearsay.

This ruling has major implications, as it opens the door for increased scrutiny of the immense authority that social workers wield over families. There is potential for this case to prompt reforms addressing abuses of power by child welfare agencies nationwide.

Many civil rights advocates are hailing Judge Sweeney’s refusal to dismiss the case as a significant step toward justice and recognition of every American’s constitutional right to due process before their family is torn apart. The case will now move forward to trial or settlement negotiations, where the plaintiff’s attorney Elliot Singer with Conduit Law will seek accountability and damages for the trauma inflicted on the family.

This development gives hope to parents who have had children removed unjustly, as it signals that caseworkers are not immune from repercussions when they abuse their position. The Arapahoe County case is being closely watched by civil liberties groups as well as social welfare agencies across the country. However it is ultimately resolved, this case will likely lead to long-overdue changes in an arena where civil rights violations can inflict immense damage on innocent families.

The 14th Amendment provides constitutional protection for the right of parents to raise their children without undue government interference. However, this right is balanced against the state’s interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect. Child Protective Services (CPS) is the agency authorized to intervene when allegations of child maltreatment arise.

Removal of Children

CPS has the authority to remove children from parental custody if they have probable cause to believe abuse or neglect has occurred. Parents have a right to due process including a court hearing to contest removal. Courts use the minimum standard of “reasonable efforts” to prevent family separation.

Reunification Plans

When CPS removes children from the home, the agency must create a reunification plan for parents to regain custody. This may include parenting classes, counseling, drug testing, home visits, and other requirements aimed at addressing the safety issues. Parents should comply with the plan and seek prompt reunification.

Termination of Parental Rights

If parents fail to remedy the family issues within the mandated timelines, CPS may move to terminate parental rights altogether. At this stage, family reunification is no longer the goal. Courts can permanently sever the legal parent-child relationship. This is an uphill battle for parents to contest.

Seeking Reform

There are ongoing efforts to reform the child welfare system to better support family preservation, require higher standards of proof prior to removal, improve accountability for CPS errors, enforce parents’ rights to due process, provide better legal representation for parents, and prioritize family reunification plans. Reform advocates believe strengthening the integrity of the family unit should be the ultimate objective. Parents dealing with CPS interventions should seek advice from a family law attorney to understand their rights and options when faced with the potential dissolution of their family.