Colorado Compliance Connection - October 2026

Download the PDF version here

Federal  Compliance Update  

Review of Telework asa Reasonable Accommodation: Recent EEOC Guidance for Employers

Disability accommodation claimshave long been among the most common workplace discrimination claims, but therecent increase has been unusually sharp. One major driver is telework as a requested reasonable accommodation.  For employers managing return-to-officeexpectations, the practical question is whether there are lawful ways toevaluate, limit, modify, or deny telework requests when appropriate.  Recent Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC) guidance says yes, provided employers focus on the individualizedAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) analysis and the interactive process.

EEOC Guidance on Telework as anAccommodation

COVID-19 normalized remote work formany jobs.  As more employers push forin-person work, however, conflicts are increasing between employees who seektelework for disability-related reasons and employers that want consistentoffice attendance.  That tension createsrisk, especially for employers that rely on blanket return-to-office ruleswithout preserving room for individualized accommodation decisions.

On February 11, 2026, the EEOC andthe Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued FAQs addressing teleworkaccommodations in the federal sector. Although the guidance is directed to federal agencies, private employersshould pay attention because the analysis relies on ADA standards andestablished federal case law.  Thecentral message is useful for all employers: Telework may be a reasonableaccommodation, but it isn’t automatic.

Effectiveness Matters More ThanPreference

The guidance reinforces that thekey issue is whether telework is effective, not whether the employee prefersit.  Telework qualifies as a reasonableaccommodation only if it enables an applicant to participate in the hiringprocess, enables an employee to perform the job’s essential functions, or givesthe employee equal access to the benefits and privileges of employment. 

Employers therefore may ask whetherremote work helps the employee perform the essential functions of the positionrather than simply making work more comfortable or reducing symptoms unrelatedto job performance.  If anotheraccommodation is effective, such as leave for periodic flare-ups, telework maynot be required.

Reevaluation is Part of theInteractive Process

Accommodation decisions aren’tnecessarily permanent. 

The EEOC guidance makes clear thatreevaluation and modification can be part of the ongoing interactiveprocess.  A telework accommodation thatis reasonable today may become unreasonable if job duties, operational needs,the employee’s medical status, or the law materially changes.  You should build periodic reassessment intoaccommodation administration and document the reasons for any modification.

COVID-Era Flexibility Didn’tRedefine Essential Functions

The guidance also confirms thattemporary pandemic-era flexibility didn’t permanently rewrite essential jobfunctions. Suspending in-office duties during an emergency doesn’t mean thoseduties are no longer essential, and it doesn’t mean telework is always feasiblegoing forward. 

Whether physical presence isessential remains a case-specific inquiry based on current operationalrealities. You are in a stronger position when job descriptions clearlyidentify essential functions and when the business reasons for in-person workare documented.

Anxiety and Mental Health SymptomsRequire Same Individualized Analysis

The EEOC also addresses requestsbased on anxiety or other mental health symptoms related to on-site work. 

The ADA doesn’t create a generalright to avoid all workplace discomfort or distress.  The question is whether the condition createsa material barrier to working in the office. If it does, the employer shouldconsider reasonable accommodation, including telework if appropriate.  If it doesn’t, telework isn’t required merelybecause the employee would prefer to work remotely.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Keep these important points inmind:

• Avoid blanket rules.  Return-to-office policies should leave     room for individualized ADA accommodation analysis.
• Telework isn’t automatic.  Focus on whether remote work enables the     employee to perform essential job functions or access equal employment     benefits.
• Document why in-person work     matters.  Updated job descriptions     and clear operational reasons are critical when physical presence is     essential.
• Don’t treat COVID-era     arrangements as permanent evidence that all duties can be performed     remotely.
• Distinguish preference from     necessity.  Stress or discomfort     with office work, by itself, doesn’t require telework under the ADA.
• Recognize accommodation     requests even when employees don’t use “magic words.”
• Keep the interactive process     active.  Reassess accommodations     when job duties, operations, medical information, or legal standards     materially change.

Just a Friendly Reminder– Know Enough to Know if AI is Wrong:  ‘ItWasn’t Me; It Was ChatGPT’ Doesn’t Fly as an NLRA Violation Defense

In case you were looking foranother chatbot cautionary tale, the latest comes from a decision issued by anadministrative law judge analyzing a company’s arguments in defense of aNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 7 charge.

Employer Confesses, in Writing, toUnlawful Motive for Firing

The facts underlying the charge aresimple enough.  Daniela Melendez, anadministrative assistant at a company called Autofit, disclosed her hourly wageto a curious coworker.  Armed with thatinformation, the coworker went to management and demanded equal pay.  Just over two weeks later, Melendez wasfired.  When Melendez applied forunemployment benefits, the company had to submit a written explanation for hertermination to the Texas Workforce Commission. Autofit’s explanation?  Melendezhad been “instructed to keep sensitive information confidential, yet she sharedpay details with colleagues.”  Theproblem with that, of course, is that firing an employee for talking about payis unlawful.  So, the company had, inwriting, admitted to breaking the law.

Autofit tried to walk thatconfession back, twice. Initially, it argued that “shared pay details” didn’tactually mean talking about pay but rather accessing and sharing otheremployees’ sales-commission information. Unsurprisingly, given that this spin didn’t align with the statementsmade in the paperwork Autofit submitted, the argument didn’t stick.  Then the company’s witness testified that shehadn’t written the problematic sentence at all. Actually, ChatGPT had and had done so, the witness said, without anyinput from Autofit.  As the witnessdescribed it, she used ChatGPT to sound professional, pasted its outputstraight into the Texas Workforce Commission submission, couldn’t recallwhether she read it, and assumed someone downstream would fix any errors.

In Administrative Law Judge SharonSteckle’sr decision, she noted that Autofit’s “answers to the Texas WorkforceCommission about why Melendez was terminated show that [Autofit] was less thanpleased about Melendez having a protected concerted discussion about pay.”  The judge then went on to explain that shedid “not credit [the] explanation that ChatGPT added pay without [the author’s]help.”  Even if the chatbot had generatedthe language, the judge noted, the company could have reviewed it and taken theoffending part out (and clearly did not). The employee was entitled to reinstatement, backpay, other pecuniaryharms, expungement of the file, and a notice posted on the wall for 60 days.

Takeaway

Thetakeaway here is not “never use AI.” It’s that AI does not launder your legal obligations.  Whatever a chatbot drafts on your company’sbehalf, a human owns.  Read it before itgoes to a government agency.

    State Compliance Update  

Colorado's New AIEmployment Law Takes Effect January 1, 2027

Artificial intelligence and automated technology arebecoming increasingly common in the workplace, particularly in recruiting,applicant screening, and employee evaluations.  Beginning January 1, 2027, Colorado employersusing certain automated decision-making tools will face new disclosure andcompliance requirements under Senate Bill 26-189 (SB26-189).

Signed into law on May 14, 2026, SB26-189 replacesColorado's previously enacted AI regulatory framework with new requirementsfocused on transparency, access to information, and human review when automatedtechnology materially influences important decisions about individuals.

What Does the New Law Cover?

SB26-189 regulates certain automated decision-makingtechnology (ADMT) used to materially influence consequential decisions,including decisions involving employment.

For employers, covered technology may include systemsused to:

• Screen, rank, or recommend job     applicants.
• Evaluate candidates during the     hiring process.
• Assist with promotion or     compensation decisions.
• Make recommendations affecting     employment opportunities.

The law is not limited to technology specificallymarketed as artificial intelligence. Other automated systems that processpersonal information and generate scores, rankings, recommendations, orpredictions may also qualify.

However, not every automated workplace tool iscovered.  For example, technology usedonly to organize or summarize information for human review generally fallsoutside the law when it does not generate an inference that materiallyinfluences a consequential decision.

What Will Employers Be Required to Do?

Employers using covered automated decision-makingtechnology will have several important responsibilities.

·       Provide Notice:  Employers must provide clear and conspicuous noticewhen individuals interact with covered technology used in consequentialdecisions.  This may affect how employerscommunicate with applicants during online applications and automated screeningprocesses.

·       Explain Adverse Decisions:  Whencovered technology is used in a consequential decision resulting in an adverseoutcome, employers generally must provide specified information within 30 days.

This includes a plain-languagedescription of the technology's role in the decision, information aboutrequesting additional details, and instructions explaining the individual'srights.

·       Allow Requests for Human Review:  Individuals affected by adverse decisions may requestmeaningful human review and reconsideration, subject to the law's commerciallyreasonable standard.

Employers should establish procedures forreceiving and responding to these requests rather than relying exclusively onautomated results.

·       Maintain Compliance Records:  Employers using covered technology must retainrecords necessary to demonstrate compliance for at least three years.

Does This Apply to Your Business?

The law may apply to Colorado employers usingautomated systems that materially influence hiring, promotion, compensation, orother covered employment decisions.

Importantly, employers may have responsibilities evenwhen the technology is provided by an outside vendor.  Businesses should not assume that purchasingrecruiting or HR software transfers all compliance obligations to the softwareprovider.

What Should Employers Do Before January1?

With the effective date approaching, employers shouldconsider taking the following steps:

• Review existing technology. Identify applicant tracking systems,     recruiting platforms, automated assessments, and other HR tools that     influence employment decisions.
• Contact software vendors.  Determine whether their products fall     within the law and request information about system functionality,     limitations, and available compliance documentation.
• Update applicant communications.  Prepare appropriate notices explaining     the use of covered automated decision-making tools.
• Establish review procedures. Designate personnel and processes for     handling requests for information, corrections, and human reconsideration.
• Train HR personnel and hiring     managers. Ensure employees involved in hiring and employment decisions     understand when automated technology is being used and how to respond to     requests.

What Happens if Employers Do Not Comply?

The Colorado Attorney General is responsible forenforcing SB26-189 under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Violations maybe treated as deceptive trade practices.

The law does not establish a new private right ofaction, although other existing legal protections may still apply. Certainviolations are subject to a 60-day notice-and-cure process before enforcement,with exceptions for knowing or repeated violations.

The Bottom Line

January 1, 2027, is approaching quickly.  Employersusing automated hiring or HR technology should take time before year-end toevaluate their systems, communicate with vendors, and prepare for the law's newtransparency and review requirements.

Colorado's Attorney General is developingimplementing regulations that may provide additional details about compliance.Employers should monitor those developments and consult employment counsel asneeded.

Taking proactive steps now can help employerscontinue using workplace technology while meeting their legal responsibilities.

Learn More: ColoradoSenate Bill 26-189 — Official Legislative Information

Colorado's New Agricultural Overtime Law Takes Effect January 1,2027

Beginning January 1, 2027, Colorado agriculturalemployers will be subject to updated overtime requirements under Senate Bill26-121 (SB26-121).  Signed into law onMay 4, 2026, the legislation establishes a new statewide overtime threshold forcertain agricultural employees and increases penalties for wage theft andemployee misclassification.

The law is particularly important for farms, ranches,and other agricultural businesses where employees may work extended hoursduring planting, harvesting, and other seasonal operations.

What Is Changing?

Under SB26-121, covered agricultural employees mustreceive overtime pay when they work more than 56 hours in a workweek, beginningJanuary 1, 2027.

The new statutory threshold replaces the agriculturalovertime thresholds that were previously scheduled to take effect underColorado's existing regulatory framework.

For example, an eligible agricultural employee whoworks 60 hours in a workweek would generally be entitled to four hours ofovertime pay.

The law also removes the Colorado Division of LaborStandards and Statistics director's authority to establish agriculturalovertime thresholds through administrative rules, placing the new 56-hourthreshold directly into state law.

Does the New Overtime Requirement Applyto Every Agricultural Employee?

Not necessarily. SB26-121 establishes specificexceptions for certain agricultural workers.

The 56-hour overtime requirement generally does notapply to:

• Open-range livestock workers: Employees principally engaged in     producing livestock on the open range, as defined under applicable federal     regulations.
• Decision-making managers: Certain employees with qualifying     management responsibilities who meet the law's definition.
• Family members: Certain qualifying family members     of a family owner of an agricultural business.

Employers should carefully review these exceptionsbefore determining that an employee is exempt. Job titles or familyrelationships alone may not establish that an exception applies.

Increased Penalties for Wage Violations

In addition to changing overtime requirements,SB26-121 increases penalties for certain wage theft and employeemisclassification violations involving agricultural employers.

This makes accurate employee classification, payrollcalculations, and recordkeeping particularly important.

Employers should ensure that workers are properlyclassified, all compensable hours are recorded, and overtime wages are paidwhen required.

What Should Agricultural Employers DoBefore January 1?

With the effective date approaching, agriculturalemployers should consider taking the following steps:

• Review employee classifications.  Identify which employees are covered by     the new overtime requirements and whether any statutory exceptions apply.
• Evaluate employee schedules.  Review workweeks that regularly exceed 56     hours, particularly during busy agricultural seasons.
• Update payroll systems.  Coordinate with payroll providers to     ensure overtime is calculated correctly beginning January 1, 2027.
• Review labor budgets.  Consider how the updated overtime     threshold may affect staffing costs and seasonal workforce planning.
• Train supervisors.  Ensure managers understand the importance     of accurate timekeeping, employee classifications, and overtime     compliance.
• Maintain accurate records.  Confirm that timekeeping and payroll     practices appropriately document hours worked and wages paid.

Does This Affect All Colorado Employers?

No. SB26-121 specifically addresses overtimerequirements for agricultural employees. Employers outside the agriculturalindustry will generally continue to follow the overtime requirements applicableto their workplaces under Colorado and federal wage-and-hour laws.

Agricultural businesses must also continue complyingwith other applicable employment laws, including minimum wage, wage payment,and workplace protection requirements.

The Bottom Line

January 1, 2027, is approaching quickly. Colorado agricultural employers shoulduse the remaining months of 2026 to review employee classifications, evaluatescheduling practices, and update payroll procedures.

Although the new law establishes a uniform 56-hourweekly overtime threshold for most covered agricultural employees, it alsoincreases the potential consequences of certain wage-and-hour violations.

Taking proactive steps now can help agriculturalemployers transition smoothly to the new requirements and reduce the risk ofcostly compliance issues.

Learn More: Colorado Senate Bill 26-121 —Official Legislative Information

    Compliance  Calendar  

November

Nothing so far…

December

12/31 – Gag Clause ProhibitionCompliance Attestation

January 2027

(W2s will be due 2/1 in 2027 since 1/31falls on a Sunday

Disclaimer:

Lighthouse HR Support (LHRS) provides practical humanresource information and guidance based upon our knowledge and experience inthe industry and with our clients.  LHRSservices are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice.  LHRS services are designed to provide generalinformation to human resources and/or business professionals regarding humanresource concerns commonly encountered. Given the changing nature of federal, state, and local legislation andthe changing nature of court decisions, LHRS cannot and will not guarantee thatthe information is completely current or accurate.  LHRS services do not include or constitutelegal, business, international, regulatory, insurance, tax, or financialadvice.  Use of our services, whether byphone, email or in person shall indicate your acceptance of this knowledge.  Information provided in part by Mineral and HR