Previous  Next

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

Statute text

(1) (a) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), a person who violates the provisions of section 24-34-601 based on a disability shall be subject to the provisions of section 24-34-802.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The relief provided by this section is an alternative to that authorized by section 24-34-306 (9), and a person who seeks redress under this section is not permitted to seek relief from the commission.


Source: L. 79: Entire part R&RE, p. 937, 3, effective July 1. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 1662, 66, effective July 1. L. 2008: Entire section amended, p. 1597, 7, effective May 29. L. 2009: (1) and (2) amended, (SB 09-110), ch. 238, p. 1086, 8, effective July 1. L. 2013: (2) repealed and (3) amended, (SB 13-184), ch. 127, p. 426, 1, effective April 19. L. 2014: (1) amended, (SB 14-118), ch. 250, p. 979, 8, effective August 6.


Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act amending this section, see section 1 of chapter 341, Session Laws of Colorado 2008.





Law reviews. For comment on Crosswaith v. Bergin appearing below, see 7 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 78 (1934). For comment on Crosswaith v. Thomason appearing below, see 7 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 78 (1934).

Section is constitutional. Crosswaith v. Bergin, 95 Colo. 241, 35 P.2d 848 (1934).

Section must be strictly construed. Considering the penal character of this section, the rule of strict construction must be applied. Darius v. Apostolos, 68 Colo. 323, 190 P. 150 (1920).

No proof of pecuniary damage is necessary in an action under this and the preceding section for the refusal to serve a person because of his race in a restaurant. Crosswaith v. Bergin, 95 Colo. 241, 35 P.2d 848 (1934).

Burden on proprietor to show employee's discriminatory action not within scope of authority. Where a cashier refuses to serve a person on account of his color, the burden is on the proprietor to show that the refusal is not committed in the course of the proprietor's business or that it is not within the scope of the cashier's authority. Crosswaith v. Thomason, 95 Colo. 240, 35 P.2d 849 (1934).

Defendant's offer to pay, or deposit, $500.01 did not moot plaintiff's claim. Whether an offer of tender can be considered payment for penalty must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 2023 COA 8, __ P.3d __.