What you'll learn
- Why Colorado's Law Catches Employers That California's Doesn't
- What the Job Posting Requirement Actually Demands
- The Promotional Opportunity Notice Requirement Most Employers Miss
- Penalties and Enforcement
- Building Colorado-Specific Compliance Into a Multi-State Process
Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act is often discussed alongside California's SB 1162 as though the two laws work the same way, and that assumption causes real compliance gaps, since Colorado's law is structurally stricter in specific ways — a zero-employee-threshold for the job posting requirement, a mandatory benefits description alongside the compensation range, and a distinct promotional opportunity notice requirement that most compliance efforts focused on external hiring never extend to internal promotions. This guide covers exactly what EPEWA requires for job postings and internal promotions, the narrow remote-work exception added by the 2023 amendments, the specific penalty structure enforced by the Colorado Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, and how to build the promotional notice requirement into a standard internal mobility process rather than treating it as a compliance item that's easy to overlook.
Why Colorado's Law Catches Employers That California's Doesn't
Quick answer
Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA), originally effective January 2021 and substantially amended by SB23-105 effective January 2024, applies its job posting disclosure requirement to any employer with at least one Colorado-based employee — with no minimum company size threshold at all. This is a meaningfully different and stricter standard than California's SB 1162, which only applies once an employer reaches 15 employees company-wide. A five-person startup with a single remote employee working from Denver is fully covered by EPEWA the moment that posting requirement applies, in a way it would not yet be covered under California's law with an equivalent single California-based hire.
This threshold difference is the specific detail that catches small and early-stage employers off guard, since most general pay transparency compliance guidance defaults to discussing larger-employer thresholds like California's 15 or New York's 4, leaving founders and small HR teams with the incorrect impression that a handful of employees puts them safely below every state's radar. Colorado's zero-threshold design means company size is simply irrelevant to whether the posting obligation applies — only the presence of a single Colorado employee matters.
The 2023 amendments under SB23-105, effective January 2024, did narrow the law's application in one specific way: employers can now limit compliance for certain remote positions that are not tied to Colorado if they satisfy specific conditions, including that the position will not include Colorado-based work and the employer has a defensible reason for excluding Colorado applicants generally. This exception is narrow and specifically documented, and it does not apply to positions genuinely open to Colorado-based candidates or that could be performed from Colorado — it exists to address the original law's practical effect of causing some employers to exclude Colorado from remote job postings entirely, which regulators viewed as an undesirable side effect worth correcting.
What the Job Posting Requirement Actually Demands
Quick answer
Covered employers must include in every job posting the hourly or salary compensation, or a range of the compensation, that the employer is reasonably expecting to pay for the position, along with a general description of all compensation benefits (bonuses, commissions, and other forms of compensation) and a general description of employment benefits offered. This benefits disclosure component distinguishes Colorado from several other states' laws, including New York's, which requires only the salary range without a parallel benefits description requirement.
The compensation range must reflect a genuine, reasonable good-faith expectation, not an artificially wide range — the Colorado Division of Labor Standards and Statistics (DLSS), which enforces EPEWA, has investigated complaints about implausibly wide ranges from large employers, mirroring the same enforcement pattern seen under California's law. A range spanning multiple full job levels or a several-hundred-thousand-dollar spread for a single individual contributor role invites exactly this kind of scrutiny.
The posting requirement applies to postings distributed through any medium the employer uses to solicit applicants, including third-party job boards and recruiting agencies acting on the employer's behalf — the obligation to ensure the required disclosures appear doesn't transfer away from the employer just because a staffing agency or job board is technically the one publishing the listing.
Colorado's EPEWA has no minimum employee count threshold for the job posting requirement — a single Colorado-based employee triggers full compliance obligations regardless of overall company size, which is meaningfully stricter than California's 15-employee threshold and catches small employers who assume pay transparency laws only apply to larger companies.
The Promotional Opportunity Notice Requirement Most Employers Miss
Quick answer
EPEWA's most commonly overlooked requirement is its promotional opportunity notice obligation: before making a promotion decision, covered employers must make reasonable efforts to announce, post, or otherwise make known all opportunities for promotion to all current employees on the same calendar day, and prior to making a promotion decision. This requirement is structurally distinct from the job posting disclosure requirement, and many employers who have built solid external job-posting compliance have never extended equivalent process discipline to internal promotional announcements.
This gap is common because promotion decisions frequently happen informally — a manager identifies an internal candidate they already have in mind, and the promotion gets finalized without any broader internal posting or announcement ever occurring, particularly for senior or specialized roles where the hiring manager feels confident they already know the right person. Under EPEWA, this pattern is a direct compliance violation regardless of whether the eventually selected candidate was, in fact, the strongest choice.
There are limited, specific exceptions to the promotional notice requirement — including for short-term, temporary promotions lasting less than 15 calendar days made in response to an unexpected business need, and for certain other narrowly defined circumstances outlined in the 2023 amendments. These exceptions are specific and limited; a general sense that a promotion decision was 'already effectively made' does not qualify, and employers relying on an exception should document the specific basis clearly at the time of the decision, not reconstruct a justification after the fact if the decision is later questioned.
Penalties and Enforcement
Quick answer
The Colorado Division of Labor Standards and Statistics enforces EPEWA and can impose civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 per violation, with the specific amount calibrated to factors including the size of the employer, the nature and seriousness of the violation, and whether the employer has previously violated the law. Unlike some other states' pay transparency laws, Colorado does not currently provide a private right of action for individuals to sue directly over posting violations — enforcement runs through the DLSS administrative process rather than private litigation, though this is a detail worth confirming against current law given how frequently these statutes are amended.
The DLSS also accepts and investigates complaints, and a pattern of complaints against a specific employer, even before any formal penalty is assessed, creates real reputational and administrative burden independent of the eventual financial outcome. Employers responding to a DLSS complaint should treat the investigation process itself seriously, since a poorly documented or inconsistent compliance history discovered during an investigation into one specific complaint can surface additional violations the original complaint never raised.
Related reading
Building Colorado-Specific Compliance Into a Multi-State Process
Quick answer
If your company operates in Colorado alongside other states, build your job posting workflow around Colorado's zero-employee-threshold and benefits-disclosure requirements as the baseline standard for any posting that could reach a Colorado-based candidate, rather than defaulting to a less strict standard and hoping Colorado-specific exposure never actually materializes. Given how commonly remote roles are genuinely open to candidates anywhere in the US, treating Colorado's stricter standard as the default baseline for all remote postings is often simpler and safer than maintaining a Colorado-specific carve-out process.
Build the promotional opportunity notice requirement directly into your internal mobility and promotion approval workflow, not as a separate compliance checklist item that's easy to skip under time pressure — see our guide on internal mobility strategy for how to structure an internal opportunity posting process that satisfies this kind of proactive notice requirement as a standard operating practice rather than a compliance afterthought.
For a broader view of how Colorado's requirements compare to California, New York, Washington, and Illinois, see our guide on pay transparency laws across the US, and pair your posting compliance work with a genuine pay equity audit — a compliant posting process addresses only the transparency requirement, not the underlying question of whether your actual pay practices would hold up to the same scrutiny transparency itself invites.
The promotional opportunity notice requirement — which obligates employers to notify all Colorado employees of promotional openings before making a selection decision — is the specific piece of EPEWA that trips up the most otherwise-compliant employers, since it's structurally different from a job posting requirement and easy to miss when compliance efforts focus only on external hiring.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about talent acquisition and how InCruiter helps teams solve them.
InCruiter Editorial Team
AI Hiring Research · Interview Intelligence · Enterprise Talent Strategy
The InCruiter editorial team covers AI-driven hiring, interview intelligence, and modern talent acquisition strategy. Our guides draw on platform data from 2,000+ hiring teams, conversations with talent leaders, and published research in industrial-organizational psychology.
