Summary#

SB-179, titled Public Health Employee Whistleblower Rights, would amend Colorado’s existing worker health-and-safety whistleblower law, including sections 8-14.4-101 and 8-14.4-107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Its stated goal is to increase worker rights related to health and safety. The bill failed, so it did not change the law.

• The bill would add public employers identified in the bill summary as the University of Colorado Hospital Authority and the Denver Health and Hospital Authority to the law’s definition of “principal.”
• Under the existing law, as described in the bill summary, a principal may not discriminate against, take adverse action against, or retaliate against a worker who in good faith raises a reasonable concern about a workplace violation of government health or safety rules.
• It would make any action or potential action under this law not subject to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act’s limits, notice requirements, procedural requirements, or liability restrictions.

What it means for you#

• Workers at the two hospital authorities: If covered by the existing whistleblower law, they would have the same protections against retaliation under that law as other covered workers. The bill does not set out a new process for making a complaint.
• The hospital authorities: They would be included as “principals” under the law and subject to its existing restrictions on discrimination, adverse action, and retaliation.
• People bringing a claim under the law: The bill would remove the listed Governmental Immunity Act requirements and restrictions from actions under this law. The bill does not explain how courts would apply that change.
• Everyone: Because the bill failed, none of these changes took effect.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill does not specify an appropriation, a fee, or a fine.
• It does not estimate any legal, staffing, or other costs for the state or the affected hospital authorities.

What is unclear#

• The full text of the laws being amended was not supplied, so the existing complaint and enforcement process could not be checked against current law.
• The bill refers to public employers defined elsewhere in state law. The bill summary names the two hospital authorities, but the referenced definition was not supplied to verify its full scope.
• The bill does not explain how its exemption from Governmental Immunity Act limits, notice rules, procedural rules, and liability restrictions would work alongside other parts of the law.
• The bill does not add new rules for complaints, deadlines, decisions, appeals, or reporting.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to extend existing health-and-safety whistleblower protections to workers at the two public hospital authorities.
• A possible argument for the change is that workers should not lose those protections because their employer is a public authority.
• Removing the listed Governmental Immunity Act barriers could make it easier for workers to pursue claims under the whistleblower law.

Case against#

• One concern is that the bill would remove several government protections and requirements for any action or potential action under the whistleblower law, without explaining what rules would apply instead.
• The bill does not estimate the possible legal or administrative costs for the affected authorities or the state.
• It is unclear how the change would interact with the existing enforcement process and other laws.