A Colorado hearing officer has affirmed that a Denver-area cybersecurity staffing firm illegally fired an employee for taking paid family and medical leave. The ruling upholds a state agency's finding of retaliation and awards the worker $423,826.49 in back pay, liquidated damages, and front pay. This case was one of the first contested rulings to test enforcement of Colorado's Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) Act since it took effect.
The Decision
In a Final Order issued April 30, 2026, a hearing officer with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment's FAMLI Appeals Unit affirmed a Division determination that L2 Cyber Solutions violated the FAMLI Act when it fired Claudine Ostrom, its former Director of Operations, while she was on approved medical leave.
Ostrom, who had worked for the company since 2018, took FAMLI leave beginning in January 2024 for a serious health condition. She notified the company that her leave had been extended through April 30, 2024. Nearly four weeks later, on April 10, 2024, L2 sent her a letter stating her position was being eliminated in what it described as a “restructuring.”
The hearing officer found that account unpersuasive. The record showed that L2 posted openings for roles overlapping Ostrom's duties within weeks of her leave extension and filled one of them shortly after her termination. The company had no reorganization plan predating the day it learned her leave would run longer than expected. Company representatives also acknowledged in Division interviews that learning of the extension drove the decision.
The hearing officer further found that the Division had expressly warned L2 about this risk, including during a phone call that company leadership placed to ask about its obligations. Company leadership learned that terminating an employee within 90 days of protected FAMLI activity triggers a rebuttable presumption of retaliation, but proceeded regardless.
Diane King and Marianna McLean of King Employment Law represented Ostrom. The award included back pay, liquidated damages due to the company's lack of good faith, and front pay. The front pay calculation accounted for the difficulty Ostrom faced in finding comparable work; she secured only one lower-paying position with fewer benefits after applying to roughly 200 jobs.
L2 is appealing the decision.
Colorado’s FAMLI Act
Colorado's FAMLI Act, C.R.S. § 8-13.3-501 et seq., created the state's first paid family and medical leave insurance program, funded through employer and employee payroll contributions and administered by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment.
The Act goes considerably further than its federal counterpart, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), in several respects:
| Feature | FMLA | Colorado FAMLI |
|---|---|---|
| Pay | Unpaid | Wage-replacement benefit |
| Employer Coverage | 50+ employees (within 75 miles) | Nearly all employers regardless of size |
| Employee Eligibility | 12 months employment, 1,250 hours worked | 180 days of work, no minimum-hours threshold |
Under the Act, employees who have worked for their employer at least 180 days are entitled to reinstatement to the same or an equivalent position after covered leave, and employers are barred from retaliating against workers for requesting, applying for, or using FAMLI benefits. These protections track FMLA's reinstatement and anti-retaliation provisions but reach a broader set of workers.
FAMLI's implementing regulations also give employees a procedural advantage that FMLA does not provide. If an employer takes adverse action against a worker within 90 days of protected FAMLI activity, the law presumes retaliation, and the burden shifts to the employer to prove a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason. FMLA retaliation claims, by contrast, generally require the employee to prove retaliatory motive throughout the case, without that shifting presumption.
FAMLI does track federal law closely in one area: remedies. Back pay, liquidated damages, and equitable relief such as front pay in lieu of reinstatement mirror what's available under the federal FMLA.
What This Decision Means for Colorado Employers and Employees
The ruling is among the first detailed, published applications of FAMLI's reinstatement and anti-retaliation provisions to survive a full evidentiary hearing and employer appeal. It gives Colorado employers and employees a concrete template for how the Division's rebuttable-presumption framework plays out in practice.
For employers, it signals that a stated “restructuring” will not shield an employer from liability if the eliminated duties resurface elsewhere shortly after the employee's departure. It also shows that explicit warnings from the Division about retaliation risk can be used to defeat a good-faith defense to liquidated damages.
For employees, the decision underscores that FAMLI protections extend beyond the leave period itself to the right of reinstatement, and that front pay remains available where a worker cannot find comparable employment afterward.
About King Employment Law
King Employment Law is a Denver-based plaintiffs' employment firm led by principal attorney Diane King and partner Marianna McLean.
King has practiced employment law for nearly four decades. She holds leadership roles with the National Employment Lawyers Association, previously served as board chair of the ACLU of Colorado, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers every year since 2006. She previously helped secure a $5.5 million settlement in Abade et al. v. JBS USA, representing more than 100 employees at the company's Greeley meatpacking plant in a race, national origin, and religious discrimination case litigated alongside a parallel EEOC enforcement action.
McLean, a Fordham Law graduate and Order of the Coif honoree, authored "'Equal Opportunity Harasser' Doctrine: Flawed, Pernicious, Abrogated," published in the ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law — a nationally indexed law journal article addressing a recurring defense in harassment litigation.
Together, the firm represents Colorado employees in retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and wage-and-hour matters. Past firm results do not guarantee similar outcomes in future matters.
###
Media Contact:
Diane King
King Employment Law
(303) 479-3997
https://www.kingemploymentlaw.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/diane-king-3ab33614
Published by: Randy Rohde