Colorado § 24-50-124 - Reduction of employees - definition.

§ 24-50-124. Reduction of employees - definition.

(1) (a) When certified employees who, as of January 1, 2013, are within five years from being eligible for full retirement pursuant to section 24-51-602 (1)(a) are separated from state service, they shall be separated or demoted according to procedures established by rule. Such procedures shall require that consideration be given to performance evaluations of the employees and seniority within the total state service. Such employees shall have retention rights throughout the principal department in which they are employed unless the head of the department requests, and the board approves, in advance, limitation of retention rights to major divisions, institutions, or colleges within the principal department.

(b) The state personnel director shall establish procedures, by rule, for the separation or demotion of any certified employees not covered by paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) from state service due to lack of work, lack of funds, or reorganization. Such procedures shall require that consideration be given to performance evaluations of an employee and seniority within the total state service.

(c) The appointing authorities from all departments shall consider placing a certified employee who has been identified pursuant to the procedures established pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (1) as a person to be separated from state service into a funded, vacant position for which the employee is qualified. The state personnel director shall establish by rule procedures for such placements.

(d) (I) The state personnel director shall establish by rule a layoff plan that may be used by a department to provide postemployment compensation or other benefits for certified employees separated from state service. The plan may include, but is not limited to, a hiring preference, payment towards the continuation of health benefits for a specified time after separation, tuition or educational training vouchers, severance pay, or placement on a departmental reemployment list.

(II) The postemployment compensation or other benefits may be offered through a separation agreement.

(III) In no case shall the total value of the postemployment compensation and other benefits authorized pursuant to this paragraph (d) exceed an amount equal to one week of an employee's salary for every year of his or her service, up to a maximum of eighteen weeks of the employee's salary.

(IV) A certified employee is not entitled to receive any postemployment compensation or other benefits pursuant to this paragraph (d).

(2) A certified employee who is separated from state service shall be placed on a departmental reemployment list for a period of not less than one year, unless the employee waives the right to be so placed as part of a separation agreement.

(3) As used in this section, "separated from state service" means separated from state service due to lack of work, lack of funds, or reorganization.

Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 173, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 26-1-24. L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 1202, § 20, effective July 1. L. 84: (1) amended, p. 711, § 9, effective July 1. L. 2012: Entire section amended, (HB 12-1321), ch. 260, p. 1351, § 11, effective September 1.

Cross references: In 2012, this section was amended by the "Modernization of the State Personnel System Act". For the short title and the legislative declaration, see sections 1 and 2 of chapter 260, Session Laws of Colorado 2012.

ANNOTATION

Veterans' preference provision of § 15 of art. XII, Colo. Const., should be read into subsection (1) as an implied limitation on the scope of its applicability in order to sustain the constitutionality of the statute. Colo. Ass'n of Pub. Employees v. Lamm, 677 P.2d 1350 (Colo. 1984) (decided prior to 1984 amendment).

Failure to conduct performance evaluations held not to invalidate allocation decision. Renteria v. State Dept. of Pers., 811 P.2d 797 (Colo. 1991).

The decision to eliminate a public safety sergeant position and to replace armed public safety officers with unarmed guards on a university police force had an adverse effect on complainants' working conditions, but the layoffs were due to the overall reorganization, not the decision to contract out some of the police work. Therefore, the complainants' injuries are not measured by the pay and benefits they would have received in the same positions but by the pay and benefits they would have received if they had continued employment in the available positions. Sutton v. Univ. of S. Colo., 870 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1994).

Public safety sergeant who is laid off from a university police force due to a reorganization is not entitled to reinstatement to the position of public safety officer, unless complainant shows that had there been no contracting out, complainant reasonably could have expected to be advanced to the position of public safety officer. Sutton v. Univ. of S. Colo., 870 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1994).

Substantially equivalent employment. In determining if the university's unconditional offer to re-employ a former public safety sergeant who was laid off due to reorganization as a public officer is substantially equivalent employment, a comparison must be made between the unarmed guard position he would have occupied if there had been no contracting out and the public safety position that was offered. Sutton v. Univ. of S. Colo., 870 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1994).

Where a public employee has a property interest in continued employment, the employee is not deprived of that interest when his or her position is abolished. State laws creating the property interest, while usually giving rise to a legitimate expectation that disciplinary termination may not occur without adequate procedures, do not create a legitimate expectation that the employee's position will never be abolished. Velasquez v. Dept. of Higher Educ., 93 P.3d 540 (Colo. App. 2003).

If due process does not require a hearing at all when a public employee's job is abolished, then affording a hearing but placing the burden of proof on the employee complaining of job abolishment cannot offend due process. Velasquez v. Dept. of Higher Educ., 93 P.3d 540 (Colo. App. 2003).