2 Years, Not 6: Colorado Supreme Court Says Minimum Wage Act Limitations Period Mirrors FLSA

The Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision in By the Rockies LLC and Duane Layton v. Perez on Sept. 15, 2025, that determined that a two-year statute of limitations (for non-willful violations) or three-year statute of limitations (for willful violations) is applicable to claims brought under Colorado's Minimum Wage Act, instead of a default "catch-all" six-year statute of limitations. This decision resolved a long-standing disagreement between the plaintiffs' attorneys and employers' counsel and provided much-needed clarity in these disputes going forward.

Background

In 2022, Samuel Perez filed a complaint alleging that By the Rockies LLC (BTR) failed to provide him and other employees their required meal and rest breaks during his 2016-2017 employment in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act (§ 8-6-118, C.R.S.). Perez filed this complaint five years after the alleged violations, which would not have been a problem if Colorado's default six-year statute of limitations applied to his claims. However, BTR moved to dismiss Perez's complaint, arguing that the two-year statute of limitations found in Colorado's Wage Act (§ 8-4-112, C.R.S.) should apply. The district court agreed with BTR and dismissed the case. Perez appealed, and a divided Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the default six-year statute of limitations should apply. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve which limitations period applies.

The Colorado Supreme Court's Decision

The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately determined that the two- or three-year statute of limitations found in the Wage Act applies to claims brought under the Minimum Wage Act. The court reasoned:

• The Wage Act and Minimum Wage Act are part of the same comprehensive statutory scheme that addresses the payment of wages, and both acts have the same purpose of allowing employees to recover unpaid wages.
• A two- or three-year statute of limitations is consistent with state requirements that employers keep payroll records for three years and that employees register alleged violations of the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order with the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics within two years of a non-willful violation. The court further found that the Colorado General Assembly intended that employees could reach back no further than three years to recover unpaid wages.
• The General Assembly has sought to bring Colorado wage-and-hour laws in line with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which has a two- or three-year statute of limitations.

Practical Implications

The Perez decision brings Colorado wage-and-hour law into closer alignment with both federal law and the wage-and-hour laws of most other states. Employees are limited to a maximum of three years, instead of six years, prior to their case filing to recover unpaid wages, halving an employer's potential liability under the Minimum Wage Act. However, nothing limits liability more effectively than compliance, and employers should continue adhering to the requirements of the Minimum Wage Act and related regulations, including ensuring adequate rest and meal breaks are provided to employees.

For more information or questions on compliance with Colorado wage-and-hour law or any other labor and employment compliance issue, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's Labor and Employment Group.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.