Written by James P. Looby and Alex E. Mastorides From Vedder Price PC on Sept 18, 2025
On September 15, 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated ruling in By the Rockies v. Perez, clarifying that the statute of limitations for claims under the state’s Minimum Wage Act is two years, or three years for a willful violation. This employer-friendly ruling reversed a Colorado Court of Appeals decision holding that plaintiffs have six years to bring such a claim.
Plaintiff Samuel Perez was an employee of By the Rockies (BTR) from 2016 to 2017. He alleged that BTR violated Colorado’s Minimum Wage Act, C.R.S. § 8-6-118, by failing to provide meal and rest breaks during shifts. Perez left BTR in 2017 but did not file his claim until 2022—five years after the alleged Minimum Wage Act violations occurred. BTR moved to dismiss the claims, arguing the claims were time barred.
Although the text of Colorado’s Minimum Wage Act contains no explicit statute of limitations, the Colorado Wage Claim Act (C.R.S. § 8-4-122), which applies to similar Colorado wage claims, has a statute of limitations that mirrors the statute of limitations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)—i.e., two years, or three years for a willful violation. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). BTR argued the court should adopt the Wage Claim Act’s statute of limitations, while Perez argued that the six-year default statute of limitations period for claims involving a “liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money” (C.R.S. § 13-80-103.5(1)(a)) applied. The district court sided with BTR and dismissed Perez’s claim as untimely. On appeal, the state Court of Appeals reversed and held that Perez’s claims were timely because the six-year default statute of limitations applied. The court stated, “because the Wage Claim Act’s limitations provision applies only to article 4 claims, it plainly and unambiguously does not apply to Perez’s [Minimum Wage Act] claim here.” Based on the plain language of the statutes, the court reasoned, “It would seem clear that the six-year limitations period … applies.”
BTR appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, and the Court sided with BTR and the district court, holding that the two- or three-year statute of limitations set forth in the Wage Claim Act should likewise apply to claims under the Minimum Wage Act.
The Court explained that two statutes should be construed together when they share a common purpose. And here, because the Wage Claim Act and the Minimum Wage Act both protect rights of the same nature (i.e., employee wages), the Court held that “[a]pplying the limitations period from the Wage Claim Act to claims brought under the Minimum Wage Act harmonizes the entire statutory scheme.”
The Court further noted that the shorter limitations period also makes practical sense. Colorado’s minimum wage regulation requires employers to keep payroll records for three years, so applying a six-year statute of limitations would put an employer in the untenable situation of having to defend against claims for a period during which it was not statutorily required to maintain payroll records. Applying a two- or three-year statute of limitations also effectuates the Colorado legislature’s intent that the state’s wage laws generally align with the FLSA’s statutory scheme.
At bottom, the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to adopt a shorter limitations period is welcome news for Colorado employers, particularly in light of the severe penalties under Colorado’s wage and hour laws for non-payment of required wages. But employers should continue to be proactive in managing their timekeeping and payroll policies and practices to ensure legal compliance and mitigate the risk of any unpaid wage claims.
