Colorado Auditor Report: Colorado Civil Rights Commission Management of Civil Rights Discrimination Complaints

COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS

DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS
AUGUST 2019 PERFORMANCE AUDIT

THE MISSION OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
IS TO IMPROVE GOVERNMENT
FOR THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Senator Nancy Todd – Chair Representative Lori Saine – Vice-Chair
Representative Rod Bockenfeld Senator Paul Lundeen

Senator Rhonda Fields Representative Dafna Michaelson Jenet
Representative Tracy Kraft-Tharp Senator Jim Smallwood
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
Dianne E. Ray State Auditor
Monica Bowers Deputy State Auditor
Vickie Heller Audit Manager
Kate Shiroff Team Leader
Cain Day Auditors

Kate Sabott
AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE AT

WWW.COLORADO.GOV/AUDITOR
A BOUND REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED BY CALLING THE

303.869.2800
PLEASE REFER TO REPORT NUMBER 1820P WHEN REQUESTING THIS REPORT

OFFICE
OF THE STATE AUDITOR
DIANNE E. RAY, CPA

August 30, 2019 ——
STATE AUDITOR
Members of the Legislative Audit Committee:
This report contains the results of a performance audit of the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission and the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The audit was
conducted pursuant to Section 2-3-125, C.R.S., which requires a performance
audit of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Civil Rights
Division by December 15, 2019, and Section 2-7-204(5), C.R.S., which
requires the State Auditor to annually conduct performance audits of one or
more specific programs or services in at least two departments for purposes of
the SMART Government Act. The report presents our findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, and the responses of the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission and the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

1525 SHERMAN STREET
7TH FLOOR
DENVER, COLORADO
80203
303.869.2800
CONTENTS
Report Highlights 1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW 3
Division Complaint Process 5

Commission Review of Complaints 7
Division and Commission Organization and Funding 10
Audit Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 11
CHAPTER 2
MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION
COMPLAINTS 15
Timeliness of Investigative Activities 16

RECOMMENDATION 1 26
Time Extension Requests 29

RECOMMENDATION 2 36
RECOMMENDATION 3 39
Data Management 41
RECOMMENDATION 4 46
RECOMMENDATION 5 47
Civil Rights Commission Transparency and Accountability 48

RECOMMENDATION 6 55
REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
PERFORMANCE AUDIT, AUGUST 2019 COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
CONCERN
The Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division) does not investigate complaints in a timely manner and uses time extensions
that statute provides to the parties to allow itself more time. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) could not
provide evidence of how it makes decisions related to discrimination complaints, resulting in processes that are opaque and
prevent the public from gaining assurance that it operates in a fair and consistent manner.
KEY FINDINGS BACKGROUND

 The Division did not complete its investigative work for 367 of the 933  Individuals in protected classes (e.g.
complaints we reviewed (39 percent) within 270 days, as required by statute. age, race, color, mental or physical
On average, the Division took almost a year to complete its work on each of disability, marital status, national
these delayed cases. origin/ancestry, creed, sex, and sexual
orientation) may file complaints of
 The Division could not provide evidence that staff were actively investigating
discrimination in employment,
complaints for time spans ranging from 3 to 10 months for nine of a sample
housing, and public accommodations
of 25 complaints.
[Sections 24-34-301 through 805,
 The Division’s records show the Division initiated time extension requests to
C.R.S.].
complete its own work in 58 of a sample of 66 such requests we reviewed,  The Division investigates complaints
when statute only provides for the complainant and respondent parties to to determine whether there is
request time extensions. The Commission approved all of the requests, which “probable cause” the alleged
extended the 270-day statutory deadline, but could not provide evidence that discrimination occurred and mediates
it considered whether there was “good cause” to grant the extension, as settlement terms between
statute requires. complainant and respondent parties
 The Division did not maintain complaint information that was accessible in when there is probable cause.
any aggregated form to support its decision-making, achievement of  If the parties cannot settle, the
objectives, or external reporting, from November 2016, when it implemented Commission reviews the complaint to
decide if an Administrative Law
its online complaint management system, through the end of our audit period
Hearing should be set to resolve the
(June 2019).
complaint.
 The Commission does not operate in a manner that allows for transparency
 The Division and Commission have
or accountability. It could not provide evidence in meeting minutes or audio 270 days to investigate a complaint and
recordings that it discussed the cases, applied rules and policies to the reviews, determine whether a hearing should be
and how it decided the disposition of any of the 218 cases it reviewed in Fiscal set [Section 24-34-306(11), C.R.S.].
Years 2017 and 2018. Further, the Commission votes in executive session, in  In Fiscal Year 2019, a total of 1,929
violation of the Colorado Sunshine Law. complaints were filed with the Division.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
 The Division should improve the timeliness of its complaint investigations by establishing, monitoring, and adjusting
expectations for staff on completing each milestone in the process. The Division should not use the parties’ statutory
time extensions for completing its work.
 The Commission should discuss complaints to determine their disposition; document its consideration of complaints;
base decision-making on its discussions and on the factors that must be applied to each complaint; and vote on
complaints during open meetings, in accordance with statute.
 The Division and Commission agreed with three of the recommendations and partially agreed with three of the
recommendations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT, CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
303.869.2800 - WWW.COLORADO.GOV/AUDITOR
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
Colorado law [Sections 24-34-301 through 805, C.R.S.]

establishes a process for individuals in specific protected classes to
file complaints of discrimination in employment, housing, and
public accommodations (i.e., access to goods or services a business
offers to the public) and have their complaints undergo an
expeditious, impartial review of applicable laws and relevant facts
with the goal of resolving the situation without the need for legal
representation or formal court proceedings.
4
The Civil Rights Division (Division) and Civil Rights Commission

MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS, PERFORMANCE AUDIT – AUGUST 2019
(Commission), within the Department of Regulatory Agencies

(Department), both have statutory responsibility and jurisdiction to
deal with discrimination complaints that:
 Are filed by a member of a class that is protected under statute,

which includes age, race, color, mental or physical disability, marital
status, national origin/ancestry, religion or creed, sex, and sexual
orientation [Sections 24-34-301 through 805, C.R.S.].
 Allege the respondent (the individual or entity the complainant

states was discriminatory) carried out an adverse action prohibited
by Colorado law, which includes harassment, refusal to hire, refusal
to accommodate, discriminatory financing, refusal to rent, and
restricted access to goods or services in a public business or venue
[Sections 24-34-301 through 805, C.R.S.].
 Allege discrimination in one of the three areas outlined in statute,

which are employment, housing, or public accommodation [Sections
24-34-401 through 805, C.R.S.].
Examples of civil rights complaints that have been filed with the
Division include allegations that an employer did not hire a complainant
based on age (potential employment discrimination), a rental company
did not lease an apartment to a complainant based on race (potential
housing discrimination), and a business-owner did not sell goods to a
complainant based on sexual orientation (potential public
accommodation discrimination). A detailed listing of specific classes
protected by statute and the types of adverse actions prohibited in each
of the three areas are listed in APPENDIX A.
EXHIBIT 1.1 shows the total number of discrimination complaints filed,

by area of statute, over the last 5 years.
5
EXHIBIT 1.1. DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS FILED
REPORT OF THE COLORADO STATE AUDITOR

FISCAL YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2019
ANNUAL
PERCENTAGE
CHANGE FOR
FISCAL PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT HOUSING TOTAL TOTAL
YEAR ACCOMMODATION
COMPLAINTS
2015 THROUGH
2019
2015 766 112 85 963 -
2016 737 154 98 989 3%
2017 903 159 76 1,138 15%
2018 1,163 346 184 1,693 49%
2019 1,399 320 210 1,929 14%
TOTAL 4,968 1,091 653 6,712
SOURCE: Office of the State Auditor analysis of Division annual reports and data.
DIVISION COMPLAINT PROCESS
To formally file a civil rights discrimination complaint, which becomes

a legal document once filed, a complainant must provide the Division
with information about themselves, the respondent alleged to have
committed the discriminatory practice, and the specifics of what
happened. The Division has intake staff who initially screen each
complaint to ensure that it falls within the Division’s jurisdiction. Once
screened in, the Division requires the complainant to sign and date the
written complaint. The date the Division receives the signed complaint
is considered the date the complaint is officially filed.
After a complaint is filed, the Division begins its investigative process,

which includes notifying the respondent of the complaint; requesting
information and documents relevant to the complaint from the
respondent and the complainant; conducting interviews with the parties
(i.e., the complainant and respondent) and other witnesses; and making
on-site inspections to collect more evidence or observe the environment.
The Division has authority to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony
and records. The purpose of the Division’s investigation is to make a
determination of whether there is probable cause (or no probable cause)
that the alleged discrimination occurred. The Division’s determination
of probable cause drives whether and how the complaint is further
reviewed, as follows:
6
 PROBABLE CAUSE. When the Division determines that probable cause

exists, statute requires the parties to participate in a mandatory

mediation process [Section 24-34-306(2)(b)(II), C.R.S.]. Division
staff facilitate the mediation with the goal of identifying settlement
terms agreeable to both parties. For example, the respondent may
agree to compensate the complainant for a specified amount of lost
wages in an employment case. If the parties agree to settlement
terms, the Division closes the complaint. If the parties do not reach
settlement terms, the Division turns the complaint over to the
Commission for review.
 NO PROBABLE CAUSE. When the Division determines that no

probable cause exists, it dismisses the complaint. The complainant
may appeal a “no probable cause” determination, to the
Commission, within 10 days [Section 24-34-306(2)(b)(I)(A),
C.R.S.].
EXHIBIT 1.2 illustrates this process.

7
EXHIBIT 1.2. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION PROCESS

DIVISION INVESTIGATES COMPLAINT
TO DETERMINE IF PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS
PROBABLE CAUSE— MANDATORY MEDIATION

NO PROBABLE CAUSE—CASE DISMISSED
TO ATTEMPT TO SETTLE CASE.
NO APPEAL: SETTLEMENT
COMPLAINANT
CASE CLOSED. REACHED:
APPEALS TO NO SETTLEMENT.
CASE CLOSED.
COMMISSION.
COMPLAINT CONTINUES TO COMMISSION REVIEW
SOURCE: Office of the State Auditor analysis of the Division’s process.
COMMISSION REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS

One of the Commission’s primary duties under statute is to review
complaints that have been investigated by the Division to determine
their disposition. The Commission’s review is initiated in one of the
following circumstances.
 PARTIES ARE NOT ABLE TO SETTLE. If the Division exhausts its ability
to assist the parties to a complaint in reaching settlement terms
through mandatory mediation, the Commission is responsible for
determining how the complaint should move forward. For
employment and public accommodations complaints, the
Commission considers a number of factors, including the strength
of evidence provided, public interest in the issue, impact of the
violation on the public at-large, availability of remedy, and cost of
8
holding a hearing compared to possible relief to determine if an

Administrative Law Hearing should be set. For housing complaints,

statute requires the Commission to always set an Administrative
Law Hearing [Section 24-34-504(4.1), C.R.S.].
Under Section 24-34-305(1)(d), C.R.S., the Commission can

conduct the hearing or request that an administrative law judge do
so. In practice, the Commission has an administrative law judge
conduct all of its hearings. If, as a result of the hearing, the
respondent is found to have engaged in a discriminatory practice
that violates the law, the Commission is required to issue a cease
and desist order to the respondent [Section 24-34-306(9), C.R.S.].
The Commission may also order remedies for the complainant,
including, for example, that the respondent must compensate for
lost earnings, reimburse moving costs, pay actual damages, or
provide other equitable relief [Sections 24-34-405(2)(a), and 24-34-
508(1), C.R.S.].
 APPEALS. For complaints the Division dismisses as having “no

probable cause,” the complainant may make an appeal to the
Commission. The Commission reviews to determine whether to:
► Uphold the dismissal (complaint is closed).
► Remand the complaint to the Division for further investigation.
► Reverse the Division’s determination (complaint is then treated

as having probable cause and returns to the Division for
mandatory mediation).
In Fiscal Year 2018, the Commission reviewed 76 appeals.
At any point throughout the process, from the time a complaint is filed
through a hearing, the parties may (but are not required to) hire legal
representation. Additionally, after a complaint is closed (e.g., due to
settlement or dismissal) the complainant may file suit in district court.
EXHIBIT 1.3 shows the number of filed complaints that underwent

9
Division and Commission review and resulted in the outcomes

described above, for Fiscal Year 2018.
EXHIBIT 1.3.
WORK THE DIVISION AND COMMISSION CONDUCTED
IN FISCAL YEAR 2018
DIVISION MADE POST-INVESTIGATION FINDING
518 76
43
COMMISSION REVIEWED APPEAL
AND UPHELD NO PROBABLE
CAUSE FINDING
NO
PROBABLE CAUSE PROBABLE CAUSE
97
COMMISSION
REVIEWED FOR 22
HEARING-
WORTHINESS
DIVISION HELPED PARTIES RESOLVE THROUGH

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
11 COMMISSION
SET FOR
HEARING 01
HEARINGS HELD IN FRONT OF

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
SOURCE: Office of the State Auditor analysis of Division annual report and data.
1
All 11 of the cases that the Commission set for hearing in Fiscal Year 2018 settled before the hearing
took place.
10
The Commission is also tasked, in general, with educating and advising

the public, businesses, and lawmakers on Colorado’s civil rights laws.
DIVISION AND COMMISSION

ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING
The Division is overseen by a Division director and comprises about 27
full-time equivalent (FTE) staff whose main function is to receive,
investigate, and conclude on discrimination complaints. The
Commission is made up of seven members, appointed to 4-year terms
by the Governor with the consent of the Senate. Commissioners must
meet statutory requirements on representing business, community,
employee associations, and protected class affiliations [Section 24-34-
303(1), C.R.S.]. No more than three commissioners may be registered
to the same political party. The Commission meets at least once per
month to conduct its work.
Division and Commission activities are primarily funded with State

General Funds. Specifically, for Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020, the
Division was appropriated, on average, about $2.4 million in General
Funds each year. The Division also receives federal funds, on average
about $864,200 annually, through a workshare agreement with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Division
receives these funds for cases that fall within the jurisdiction of the
EEOC or HUD under the federal civil rights laws. The Division
coordinates with the EEOC and HUD to determine which entity will
investigate such complaints to avoid duplication of efforts. For
example, HUD has dual jurisdiction with Colorado over all housing
complaints and, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
EEOC has dual jurisdiction over complaints involving employers with
more than 15 employees.
The Division’s total expenditures have averaged about $2.8 million

each year, for Fiscal Years 2016 through 2019.
11
AUDIT PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND

METHODOLOGY
We conducted this performance audit pursuant to Section 2-3-125,
C.R.S., which was enacted through House Bill 18-1256 and requires the
State Auditor to conduct two performance audits of the Commission
and Division, by December 15, 2019, and December 15, 2024. In
committee hearings on House Bill 18-1256, the General Assembly
acknowledged that the audit requirements in the bill were important to
help address transparency and accountability of the Commission’s
operations, particularly given the need for confidentiality in much of its
work. The Commission received national attention in June 2018, when
the United States Supreme Court (Court) held that the Commission had
acted with bias inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of
neutrality in a public accommodations case. In particular, the Court’s
decision stated that comments made by Commissioners in a 2014
meeting “violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to
base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint”
and that “the Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent
with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality.” [Masterpiece
Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.]
This performance audit of the Commission and Division was also

conducted in accordance with Section 2-7-204(5), C.R.S., the State
Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART)
Government Act.
Audit work was performed from February through August 2019. We

appreciate the assistance provided by management and staff of the
Colorado Civil Rights Division and members of the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission.
We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
12
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on

our audit objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
The key objectives of the audit were to evaluate (1) the Division’s
timeliness in completing investigations and concluding on complaints in
line with statutory requirements and (2) the accountability and
transparency of the Commission’s decision-making processes.
To accomplish our objectives, we performed the following audit work:
 Reviewed Colorado anti-discrimination statutes and rules, and

Division and Commission policies and procedures.
 Reviewed the State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and

Transparent (SMART) Government Act [Section 2-7-201 through
205, C.R.S.], the Colorado Sunshine Law [Section 24-6-402,
C.R.S.], statutes related to state boards and commissions [Section
24-3.7-102, C.R.S.], and Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government.
 Reviewed the Department’s performance plan from 2019, the

Division’s performance report for Fiscal Year 2018, and the
Division’s annual report for Fiscal Year 2018.
 Interviewed staff at the Division and Governor’s Office of

Information Technology. We also interviewed six commissioners,
including two with terms that expired before August 2019 and four
currently serving on the Commission.
 Reviewed the complaint information in the Division’s online

complaint filing system, CaseConnect, and the Division’s
spreadsheets for all 1,292 complaints the Division completed from
November 2016 through December 2018.
 Attended one meeting of the Commission in Fiscal Year 2019,

listened to audio of three full Commission meetings from Fiscal Year
13
2019, and reviewed Commission meeting minutes for every meeting

held in Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018.
 Listened to audio recordings of General Assembly committee

hearings chamber debates for House Bill 18-1256.
We relied on sampling techniques to support some of our audit work.

Specifically, we selected the following samples:
 A non-statistical random sample of 66 time extension requests. We

selected this sample to review whether the use of extensions
complied with statutory requirements and legislative intent.
 A non-statistical random sample of five complaints in which

mediation failed and the Commission decided not to set a hearing.
We reviewed this sample for documentation of the process
commissioners used and the factors they considered when making
appeal and hearing worthiness decisions.
 A non-statistical random sample of 25 complaints to identify

investigative activities and the timespan between activities.
The results of our samples cannot be projected to their respective

populations. The samples were selected to provide sufficient coverage
of the audit objectives and, along with the other audit work performed,
provide sufficient, reliable evidence as the basis for our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
We planned our audit work to assess the effectiveness of those internal

controls that were significant to our audit objectives. Our conclusions
on the effectiveness of those controls, as well as specific details about
the audit work supporting our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, are described in the remainder of this report.
The Division and Commission reviewed a draft of this report. We have

incorporated their comments into the report where relevant. The
written responses to the recommendations and the related
implementation dates provided by the Division are the sole
14
responsibility of the Division. The written responses to the

recommendations and the related implementation dates provided by the

Commission are the sole responsibility of the Commission. However, in
accordance with auditing standards, we have included Auditor’s
Addenda to responses that are inconsistent with the findings or
conclusions or that do not adequately address the recommendation.
CHAPTER 2
MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL
RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION
COMPLAINTS
The Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division) and the Colorado

Civil Rights Commission (Commission) are charged in statute
with providing the parties to a civil rights complaint with a neutral
review and “prompt” resolution of the complaint [Sections 24-34-
305(3) and 24-34-306(2)(a), C.R.S.]. This chapter discusses our
findings and recommendations regarding deficiencies in the
16
Division’s timeliness in conducting investigative activities and in

maintaining aggregate data for filed complaints. The chapter also

includes issues in how the Division initiates time extension requests to
extend its review of complaints and how the Commission approves
these extension requests. Finally, this chapter provides our findings and
recommendations regarding the Commission’s transparency with
respect to decision-making.
TIMELINESS OF
INVESTIGATIVE
ACTIVITIES
Once a complaint is filed, the Division begins its investigation of the
allegations made to determine whether there is probable cause to believe
discrimination occurred and the complainant’s civil rights were
violated. In general, the Division conducts the following sequence of
activities during its investigations:
 Division staff mail a written notice to the respondent with information

about the complaint filed against them. Typically, staff also request
that the respondent provide a written reply to the allegation (known
as the respondent’s position statement) and any supporting
documentation or other information the respondent has related to the
complaint. Division policy states that respondents will be asked to
return their position statement and documents within 30 days.
 After the respondent replies, Division staff review the information,

then forward it to the complainant and ask the complainant to
provide a written rebuttal. Division policy states that complainants
will be asked to submit their rebuttal within 30 days.
 Division staff continue to interact with both parties and investigate

the complaint. For example, either party to the case may provide
witnesses that staff need to interview. The Division indicated that for
some cases either or both parties may provide hundreds of pages of
17
documents over the course of the investigation. The Division may

subpoena witnesses and compel the production of records relevant
to the case while the case is being investigated.
 Based on the investigation, the Division concludes on the likelihood

the alleged discrimination occurred, meaning that probable cause
exists, or conversely, that there is no probable cause to support that
the discrimination occurred. Division staff write, and the Division
Director or their designee reviews and approves, the conclusion,
called a determination.
For all cases where the Division concludes that there is probable cause
to believe the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, statute requires
the complainant and respondent to participate in mandatory mediation
[Section 24-34-306(2)(b)(II), C.R.S.]. If the parties cannot reach any
settlement agreement through mediation, the Commission is notified.
For employment and public accommodation cases, the Commission
assesses whether the case should be set for a hearing (known as an
assessment of hearing worthiness); for housing cases, statute requires
the Commission to set a hearing for all that do not settle [Section 24-
34-504(4.1), C.R.S.].
WHAT AUDIT WORK WAS PERFORMED,

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE, AND HOW
WERE THE RESULTS MEASURED?
We requested all of the data the Division had for all complaints filed
beginning in November 2016, which was when the Division began using
its online complaint filing system, CaseConnect, and closed by the end
of December 2018. CaseConnect contains detailed information about
each case, from filing through completion, but does not have the
functionality to aggregate any case data. As such, the Division
maintained Excel spreadsheets to track complaint filing and closing
dates for a total of 1,292 cases during the time period. The Division
only maintained complete data on the dates the complaints were filed
and closed for 933 of the 1,292 complaints. Therefore, we reviewed
these 933 cases to identify how long the Division took to close them.
18
We also reviewed detailed case information in CaseConnect, including

all investigator notes on activities and communication with the parties,
to identify what investigation activities staff documented, and the time
spans between activities. We conducted this detailed review for a
random sample of 25 cases of the 1,390 that were filed in CaseConnect
in Fiscal Year 2018 and had been closed or were still being investigated
by staff as of March 2019. Finally, we interviewed Division
management and staff.
The purpose of the audit work was to assess the Division’s promptness
in carrying out its work in line with statutory direction, as described
below.
THE DIVISION’S HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS SHOULD BE TIMELY. The

General Assembly intended that complaints alleging discrimination or
unfair practices be dealt with expeditiously. First, statute establishes a
270-day deadline that serves as an outer limit on the time allowed for
the Division to conclude its activities, and in some cases for the
Commission to take certain actions, once an official complaint has been
filed. During the 270-day period, the Division investigates each
complaint and determines whether probable cause exists; dismisses
cases without probable cause and attempts mediation for cases with
probable cause; and refers cases that are not resolved through mediation
to the Commission. Also during the 270-day period, the Commission
determines whether to set unresolved cases for hearing and notifies the
parties if a hearing is to be set. Statute states that if notice to the parties
that a hearing will be held is not served within 270 days after the
complaint is officially filed, the Commission loses its jurisdiction. At
that point the complainant’s only recourse to pursue the matter is in
district court.
Second, statutes include a number of more general provisions that direct

the Division to complete its work without delay:
19
 The Division is required to notify a respondent of a complaint filed

against them “prior to any other action by the division” (emphasis
added) [Section 24-34-306(1)(c), C.R.S.].
 The Division “shall make a prompt investigation” of each complaint

(emphasis added) [Section 24-34-306(2)(a), C.R.S.].
 The Division shall “determine as promptly as possible whether

probable cause exists” (emphasis added) that the alleged
discrimination occurred [Section 24-34-306(2)(b), C.R.S.].
 If the Division determines that probable cause exists, it must notify

the respondent and order the complainant and respondent to
participate in mediation. Statute states “immediately after the
[Division]…serves notice on the respondent, the [Division]…shall
endeavor to eliminate the discriminatory or unfair practice
by…means of the compulsory mediation” (emphasis added) [Section
24-34-306(2)(b)(II), C.R.S.].
WHAT PROBLEMS DID THE AUDIT WORK

IDENTIFY?
THE DIVISION’S COMMISSION’S HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS IS NOT

AND
ALWAYS TIMELY. We found that the Division did not complete its work
and conclude on some cases within the 270-day statutory timeframe
and that there were long gaps in the process for some cases. For
example:
 EXCEEDED STATUTORY TIMEFRAME. Of the 933 cases for which the

Division had data on the dates the cases were filed and closed, we
found that the Division did not complete its work for 367 (39
percent) within 270 days. The average number of days the Division
took to complete its work across the 367 cases was 348 days, with a
range of 271 to 450 days.
20
 LAGS IN THE DIVISION’S PROCESSES. The Division was prompt with

respect to two of the routine steps in their investigative process for

all 25 cases in our sample: notifying respondents of a complaint filed
against them (in line with Section 24-34-306(1)(c), C.R.S.) and
scheduling mediation very shortly after notifying the parties of its
determination of probable cause (in line with Section 24-34-
306(2)(b)(II), C.R.S.). However, for nine of the 25 cases in our
sample (36 percent), we found significant time spans (between 3 and
10 months) when there is no evidence that Division staff were
actively investigating the complaints. Specifically:
► For two of the nine cases, the Division waited between 4 and 5
months after receiving the initial information requested from the
respondent to request a rebuttal from the complainant. During
these months, there is no evidence that the Division was carrying
out investigative activity on the complaints.
► For one case, the Division waited 8 months to contact the

complainant and proceed with the investigation after receiving
the complainant’s rebuttal.
► For two cases, the Division waited between 3 and 6 months to

contact the complainant for an initial interview after having
received the complainant’s rebuttal, then ultimately did not
investigate any further. For one of these cases, about 6 months
passed before the Division interviewed the complainant, and
then determined that it did not have jurisdiction, contrary to
what the intake staff had determined. For the other case, over 3
months passed before the Division contacted the complainant, at
which time the complainant withdrew their complaint.
► For four cases, there is no evidence the Division conducted any

investigative activities after receiving the complainants’
rebuttals. Specifically, the complainants in these cases requested
“right to sue” authority under Section 24-34-306(15), C.R.S.,
which requires the Division to approve all such requests once
180 days (about 6 months) have passed, thus closing the case.
21
For three of these cases, the complainants submitted rebuttals

and then between 4 and 10 months passed with no Division
investigative activity. In the remaining case, the complainant first
requested right to sue authority about 60 days after filing their
complaint; the Division denied the request. The complainant
submitted a second request about 150 days later. In spite of the
repeated requests clearly indicating the complainant’s wish to
take the matter to court, the Division waited another 39 days
before issuing a right to sue letter. There is no evidence the
Division conducted any investigative activities on the case for the
roughly 6 months between the time it requested the
complainant’s rebuttal and the time it approved the second right
to sue request.
For three of the nine cases, the lags in investigation caused the Division’s
overall time to investigate to exceed 270 days. These three cases closed
between 342 and 418 days after the complaints were filed.
WHY DID THESE PROBLEMS OCCUR?

Overall, the Division has not implemented policies, procedures, or
guidance for staff to ensure that staff proceed with investigative
activities in a timely manner, as described below.
LACK OF TIMELINESS GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS. The Division has not

established specific goals or expectations for staff with respect to
completing each phase of their work, such as how long staff should take
to review information when the parties provide it, how quickly staff
should contact the parties to share or request information about the
case, or how quickly staff should make their probable cause
determinations to allow sufficient time for other activities (e.g.,
mediation, appeal, and hearing setting) that must occur prior to the end
of the full 270-day period that statute allows. Instead, the Division often
asks the parties to a complaint to request an extension to the 270 days
allotted in statute, for the Division’s work; we discuss the Division’s use
of the parties’ time extensions further in the next finding. The Division
22
stated that it implemented a guidance manual for staff in December

2018 and told us that one purpose of the manual was to address how
long staff should take to conduct work and to better ensure that work
is completed within 270 days. We reviewed the manual and determined
that the only guidance the manual provides related to timelines is a
statement that staff may give parties a week or two longer than 30 days
to respond to information requests, and a recommendation that staff
develop an investigative plan to “serve as a meaningful guide for
conducting the investigation and to keep it on a timely track.” Further,
the Division reported to us that it does not require staff to follow the
guidance related to timelines in the manual. Finally, although the
Division prepares written performance plans for staff that address
timeliness of case processing, the plans do not include specific timelines
or deadlines that staff are required to meet, other than the overall 270-
day statutory deadline.
NO MEASUREMENT OF ACTIVITY. While the Division reports that it

regularly tracks workload statistics (including the number of complaints
received, the number of probable cause and no probable cause
determinations issued, and the number of mediations conducted) to
include in its annual reports, it has not established a method for
monitoring or reporting the time it takes for the various steps in the
process of investigating and closing cases. For example, the Division has
not established requirements that staff consistently record in
CaseConnect when key steps in the process occur. If the Division
required such recording, it could track how long staff take to complete
various work activities, and establish processes to address instances
when staff do not make timely progress.
LACK OF STRATEGIES FOR WORKLOAD INCREASES AND TURNOVER. The

number of complaints the Division receives increased significantly when
CaseConnect was implemented in November 2016. CaseConnect now
allows online complaint submission for the first time, making it easier
to file a complaint. The Division reports that it cannot meet its statutory
jurisdictional timeline for investigating all cases because the number of
complaints increased 15 percent between Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017
23
and another 49 percent in Fiscal Year 2018. Furthermore, in Fiscal Year

2018, the Division told us that it had turnover of 25 percent, which has
contributed to delays in closing cases. According to the Division,
investigative activities for cases often stop completely when staff leave,
which can mean that months pass without investigative work until new
staff are hired. In our file review of 25 complaints, we identified two
that had timeliness issues because the cases were not reassigned for
investigation after Division staff left until new staff were hired. The
Division reports that it has taken some steps to increase efficiencies to
help deal with the workload increase, such as requiring staff to write
shorter determinations on whether probable cause exists, which takes
less time to write and review. However, the Division has not
comprehensively reviewed the time staff need to complete their work,
employed other system-wide methods to increase productivity and
timeliness, established processes to promptly reassign cases when staff
leave, or identified and requested additional resources. The lack of
information and processes to track work progress that we discuss in this
finding have likely impeded the Division’s ability to conduct such
analyses.
WHY DO THESE PROBLEMS MATTER?

EFFECTIVENESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCESS IS LIMITED. The
process established in statute could serve as a lower cost, timely
alternative to pursuing and undergoing a civil lawsuit. However, when
the Division takes longer than 270 days (9 months) to investigate and
make a determination for a complaint, or there are long lags during the
process, the Division’s ability to reduce the time and money the public
expends to have its complaints heard successfully is diminished. For
example:
 In our review of a sample of 25 cases, we saw instances in which

complainants decided to forego the administrative hearing process.
In two of the cases, at least 10 months elapsed without the Division
doing investigative work or contacting the parties, and the
complainants chose to opt out of the process by requesting right to
24
sue letters. This could indicate a loss of confidence in the Division.

Statute [Section 24-34-306(15), C.R.S.] states that complainants may

request the right to sue at any point during the Division’s
investigation and requires the Division to approve all such requests
180 days after the complaint filing date, or earlier if the Division
determines it cannot complete its investigation within 180 days. The
Division does not request or collect any information on the reasons
why complainants request the right to sue, and as such, does not
know if the lags in investigative work or untimely case completion
we identified contributed to these requests.
 During our interviews with the Division, staff told us that the
Division and Commission had lost jurisdiction for cases in Fiscal
Year 2018 and specifically identified two cases. In one case, staff
were still working on the case after more than 300 days had passed
from the time the complaint was filed; no time extensions had been
approved. In the second case, both parties received time extensions,
but the Division did not complete its investigative work and close the
case until the extended period had also passed.
In addition, for cases the Division dismisses due to lack of probable

cause, statute allows complainants 10 days to file an appeal with the
Commission after being notified of the dismissal [Section 24-34-
306(2)(b)(I)(A), C.R.S.]. This deadline is important within the context
of the 270-day outer limit because if the Commission remands an
appealed case to the Division for further investigation, statute does not
provide any additional time for such investigation. Therefore, when the
Division does not complete its investigative process in a timely manner
there is a risk jurisdictional time may run out before complainants can
submit appeals and the Commission can consider them. We identified
five cases in Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 for which the Division issued
a determination of no probable cause with less than 10 days of
jurisdiction remaining.
Additionally, statute prohibits the parties from pursuing legal action in

the courts until the Division’s and Commission’s processes have been
exhausted, the Commission loses jurisdiction, or the Division issues a
25
right to sue notice. Thus, when complainants determine they need to

request a right to sue, or when the Division loses jurisdiction,
complainants experience even longer delays in having their concerns
resolved and face the cost of taking their cases to civil court. There is
also a risk that such delays could affect the case in court, if witnesses
are no longer available, cannot be found, or have cloudy memories due
to the passage of time. Further, when the Division uses not only the full
270 days allowed in statute, but also obtains extensions on many cases,
a complainant may wait up to 450 days (15 months) only to learn that
the Division determined there was no probable cause. Of the 933 cases
for which the Division had maintained a record of both the complaint
filing and closing dates, we identified 11 cases that remained open and
under investigation with the Division for more than 425 days that ended
in no probable cause determinations.
LAGS MAY INFLUENCE THE COMMISSION’S DECISIONS ON CASES. In Fiscal

Years 2017 and 2018, the Division brought 42 cases for hearing
worthiness review to the Commission. Of those, four (10 percent) had
less than 30 days remaining in the Commission’s jurisdiction, including
two with less than 10 days left. In all four cases, the Commission
declined to set the cases for hearing after being advised by the Division
that there was not enough time to do so. Furthermore, during the
Commission meeting we attended, the Commissioners expressed their
disappointment that they could not set one case for hearing even if they
wanted to, because there was insufficient time left in its jurisdiction to
do so. When the Commission declines to set a case for hearing it no
longer retains jurisdiction over the case and the complainant’s only
recourse is to sue in district court in accordance with Section 24-34-
306(11), C.R.S.
26
RECOMMENDATION 1
The Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division) should improve the

timeliness of its investigations of and determinations on complaints by:
A Implementing internal timeliness goals and expectations for each

milestone in the process (e.g., notifying the respondent, requesting
information from each party, completing the review of the parties’
statements, contacting parties for interviews, completing the
determination, and bringing the case to the Commission) that do not
rely on the parties’ time extensions for case completion, allow
sufficient jurisdictional time for cases that may result in complainant
appeals, and allow time for Commission review of appeals or case
hearing worthiness.
B Implementing a process to track data on staff performance against

the timeliness goals established in response to RECOMMENDATION 1
PART A.
C Using the information from the tracking implemented in response to

RECOMMENDATION 1 PART B to comprehensively review the time
needed to complete work and use the review to identify and pursue
(1) system-wide methods to increase productivity and timeliness; (2)
processes to promptly reassign cases when staff leave; and (3)
additional resources, if needed.
RESPONSE
A AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JANUARY 2020.
Yes, the Division agrees to implement timeliness goals and

expectations for each step in its process (without relying on
extensions). The Division defines the completion of a case by the
closing action taken by the Division. The Commission decides the
27
outcome of appeals and determines which cases should be set for

hearing. The timely completion of cases within 270 days has been
impacted by an increased number of claims being filed with the
Division (70% in the OSA report), limitations of the CaseConnect
online filing and case management system, and staffing.
Historically, the Division has conducted several process

improvement projects to address all aspects of the Division's
processes. The Department of Regulatory Agencies and its Divisions
are LEAN organizations and will continue to evaluate our processes
over time through this lens. The Division agrees that a
comprehensive review of time needed to complete the processing of
cases be conducted, that a defined process to promptly re-assign
cases when staff depart to be developed, and additional methods of
increasing efficiency be identified and implemented given the
resources available to the Division.
Additional strategies necessary to improve timeliness include the

addition of eight additional staff. Current statistics reveal that the
division closes 90-110 cases per month. However, the Division
presently sees approximately 160 new case filings per month. As
such, 40-50 additional cases per month will need to be closed to stay
on track with timeliness.
B AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JANUARY 2020.
Yes, the Division will be improving the timeliness of its

investigations and determinations by implementing a process to
track data on staff performance against the timeliness goals from
PART 1A. Currently, there are requirements for staff to record case
steps and activity in CaseConnect. Staff performance plans also
require consistent, contemporaneous documentation of such.
Additionally, all staff members (by unit) keep Excel spreadsheets
with completion dates. Managers have one on one meetings with
staff on a weekly basis to discuss case progress, and navigate any
potential obstacles. Likewise, timeliness of case processing is also
28
specifically addressed in written performance plans. Staff's

performance is evaluated on each duty and goal within these plans,

and progressive discipline can, and has been issued, when there is a
failure to fulfill these expectations.
Moreover, the planned updates to the Division's CaseConnect

system include modifications to allow the Division to effectively
query the system or run reports to provide information needed for
management to achieve its objectives and evaluate performance,
comply with statutes, and produce accurate external reports.
C AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JANUARY 2020.
Yes, the Colorado Civil Rights Division agrees that it should

improve the timeliness of its investigations and determinations on
complaints by using the information from the tracking implemented
in response to Recommendation 1B to comprehensively review the
time needed to complete work and use the review to identify and
pursue (1) system-wide methods to increase productivity and
timeliness, (2) processes to promptly reassign cases when staff leave,
and (3) additional resources, if needed. A new feature is being added
to CaseConnect that will allow us to run reports so that we can
evaluate our processes and make additional improvements, as
needed.
For example, the new system will allow us to run reports that show
when a case might be at a certain step for a prolonged period of
time, so that Division staff can address efficiencies in that area.
29
TIME EXTENSION

REQUESTS
From the time a complainant has filed a complaint against a respondent
through the Commission’s review and decision on setting a hearing,
statute provides the Division and Commission up to 270 days to
complete their review processes [Section 24-34-306(11), C.R.S.].
Statute also allows the complainant and respondent each to request time
extensions from the Commission that can extend the 270-day period
[Section 24-34-306(11), C.R.S.]. To request an extension, the
complainant or respondent asks the Division via phone or email. The
Division then sends the request to a Commissioner (typically the
Commission chair) via email, with the name of the requesting party, the
case number, and the reason for the request. The Commissioner reviews
the extension request and sends approval back to the Division via email.
Once a Commissioner approves the extension request, the Division
sends notice to both parties.
WHAT AUDIT WORK WAS PERFORMED

AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE?
We reviewed time extension request data for the 1,158 requests
submitted on 981 complaints filed between November 2017 and
December 2018. The Division’s data indicated that all 1,158 requests
were approved, and both the Division and Commission confirmed this.
The Division does not record details of extension requests (such as
which party submitted the request or the reason for the request) in an
electronic system that is capable of aggregating data. Therefore, the only
way we could evaluate compliance with the statutes discussed in the
next section was to review a sample of hard copy documents. We
selected a random sample of 66 time extension requests and reviewed
hard copy files. For the 66 requests in our sample, the former
Commission chair was responsible for approving 53 (80 percent).
30
The purpose of our audit work was to determine whether the Division
and Commission complied with statutory requirements and intent

governing the use and approval of time extensions for the sample of
cases we reviewed.
HOW WERE THE RESULTS OF THE

AUDIT WORK MEASURED?
Both statute and Commission rules provide standards related to
requests for extensions of time:
 INITIATED BY PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT. Statute [Section 24-34-

306(11), C.R.S.] allows the complainant and the respondent to make
a request for an extension of time beyond the Commission’s 270
statutory days of jurisdiction. Statute allows each of the two parties
to the case to request, and be approved for, a maximum 90-day
extension. Statute does not have provisions that allow the Division
to request extensions of time. The Division agrees that statute only
provides for the complainant and respondent parties to request time
extensions.
 APPROVED FOR GOOD CAUSE BY THE COMMISSION. Statute allows the

parties’ requests to be granted by the Commission, stating, “If any
party requests the extension of any time period prescribed by
[statute]…such extension may be granted for good cause” [Section
24-34-306(11), C.R.S.]. According to Commission rule [Section 10.7
(B), 3 CCR 708-1], the Commission “shall consider all relevant
factors” in determining whether good cause has been shown for
approving a request for extension of time, “including but not limited
to” the following, as stated in Commission rule:
► “whether the failure to grant an extension would jeopardize the

rights of any party”
► “whether there have been administrative delays that would

adversely affect the rights of any party”
31
“whether there are other factors outside the control of any party

►
that caused delays in the administrative process”
► “whether the rights of any party would be unduly prejudiced by

the granting of an extension.”
WHAT PROBLEMS DID THE AUDIT

WORK IDENTIFY?
We found that most of the extension requests we reviewed did not
comply with one or more of the standards above. Specifically:
THE DIVISION, NOT THE PARTIES, INITIATES MOST EXTENSION REQUESTS.

Division records clearly indicate that the Division initiated 58 of the 66
time extension requests (88 percent) in our random sample. The case
documentation for each of these 58 cases included notes and
correspondence written by Division staff that explicitly asked the
complainant and/or respondent to submit a time extension request to
the Commission on the Division’s behalf, because the Division needed
more time to complete its work. Examples of the language we saw
include:
 An email from the Division to one a party stating, “As you may
know, each party may request a 90-day extension of time. While
these extensions must be requested by the parties, they are typically
for the benefit of the Division, to give us additional time.” (Emphasis
added.)
 An email from the Division to a party stating, “Due to unusually

high caseloads at the moment…I require additional time to complete
the investigation.” (Emphasis added.)
 Division correspondence indicating that the Division allowed a

respondent additional time for filing paperwork in exchange for an
extension request on the Division’s behalf. Specifically, the
correspondence stated “the Division will authorize postponement of
the 30-day deadline for submitting a response to the enclosed
32
Request for Information, contingent upon your agreement to

[request]…a 90-day Extension of Jurisdictional Time.” (Emphasis

added.)
 In Division correspondence, when a respondent asked the Division

whether an extension request of less than 90 days was a possibility,
staff replied, “I would ask that [you] consider requesting the full 90
days. This is to ensure sufficient time to complete all steps that take
place...including Director review, issuance of a determination, and
any subsequent appeal or conciliation.” (Emphasis added.)
For 38 of the 58 cases, the Division asked both parties for their time
extensions while in the other 20, the Division asked just one of the
parties to request an extension.
THE COMMISSION APPROVED ALL OF THE TIME EXTENSION REQUESTS WE

REVIEWED BUT WITHOUT EVIDENCE IT CONSIDERED “GOOD CAUSE.” For
each of the 66 cases in our random sample, we reviewed all the
documentation the Division and Commission had that might have
demonstrated that the Commission applied its rules requiring
consideration of good cause to grant a time extension [Section 10.7(B),
3 CCR, 708-1]. The documentation we reviewed included the extension
request; the email sent to the Commissioner assigned to consider the
request; the assigned Commissioner’s email response; and the approvals
sent to the requesting parties. In all 66 cases, we found no
documentation showing the Commission’s consideration of whether the
reasons for the requests constituted “good cause” in accordance with
its rules, including consideration of the effect of granting an extension
on the rights of the parties. Instead, the documentation in each case was
almost identical, containing no specific information, as follows:
 “Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-34-306 (11), the Charging (or Responding)

Party in the above-referenced case hereby requests a 90-day
extension of time to allow for completion of the administrative
process.” All the requests the Division sent to the assigned
Commissioners used this email template. The template did not
specify the reason for the request.
33
 All emails from the assigned Commissioners to the Division

approved the requests without explanation.
 All notices sent to the requesting parties used a template that stated,
“An extension of time in this charge has been granted for good cause,
specifically to preserve the rights of all parties in this charge. At the
request of the Division, the Charging [or Responding] Party
authorized use of its extension of time.”
WHY DID THESE PROBLEMS OCCUR?

The Division and Commission interpret statutes related to time
extensions to allow for the practice of the Division using the extensions
to provide more time for its work.
First, Commission policy III states, “Pursuant to Section 24-34-306(11),

C.R.S., …either of the parties may each request up to a 90 day
extension...to complete the investigation, supervisory review, issuance
of the Letter of Determination by the Director, possible [mediation],
and/or period in which to appeal or set for hearing,” (emphasis added).
This policy cites work the Division is responsible for completing; it does
not contemplate reasons a party may need more time, such as to collect
and provide documentation. As a result of its interpretation, the
Commission has not established controls to ensure that it only grants
extensions in accordance with statute. Specifically:
 It has no rules or policies to prevent the Division from initiating

extension requests available to parties to provide itself more time
than statute allows.
 It has no rules or policies requiring requesting parties to articulate

the reasons they need additional time to help the Commission
evaluate whether there is “good cause” to grant the extension.
 It has no guidance for applying statute or rules to extension requests,

such as outlining how to assess whether the granting or denial of a
request is likely to affect the rights of both parties.
34
Second, the Division told us that if it needs more time than statute
allows for it to complete its work, this need constitutes “good cause”
for a time extension, because not having enough time to carry out its
work inherently has an adverse effect on the rights of the parties.
Furthermore, the Division told us that asking the parties to request time
extensions so that Division staff can complete their work is compliant
with statutes because staff educate the parties of their right to an
extension and the parties themselves request the extension. However, a
plain reading of statute indicates:
 An expectation that the Division complete its work and issue its
determination promptly [Sections 24-34-306(2)(a) and (b), C.R.S.]
and that the entire administrative law process be closed out within
270 days [Section 24-34-306(11), C.R.S.].
 No provision for the Division to request extensions of time for

Division and Commission processes.
 That time extensions are intended to be available to the parties when

they need them, not to the Division when it needs more time for its
work. Statute states, “If any party requests the extension of any time
period prescribed by this subsection (11), such extension may be
granted for good cause by the commission…but the total period of
all such extensions to either the respondent or the complainant shall
not exceed ninety days each” (emphasis added).
Overall, the Commission’s and Division’s interpretation of statutes

related to time extensions do not appear consistent with either the spirit
or a plain reading of the law. The Commission and Division have not
sought a formal legal opinion on these practices.
Although the Division told us that it believes it is in compliance with

the statutes related to time extensions, it has also stated that statute
should be changed to authorize the Division, instead of the parties, to
request extensions. The Division told us that 270 days is insufficient to
work through most cases, particularly since the number of complaints
filed increased more than 70 percent between Fiscal Years 2016 and
35
2018. To date, the Division has not pursued or discussed such a change

with the Commission.

By asking parties to submit requests on the Division’s behalf, the time
allowed for the Division to complete its work is often extended from
270 days (9 months) to as long as 450 days (15 months). The extensions
requested for the Division contributed to the lengthy delays we found.
For example, as discussed in the TIMELINESS OF INVESTIGATIVE
ACTIVITIES finding, the Division did not complete its work for 367 cases
within 270 days. The average number of days the Division took to
complete its work for the 367 cases was 348 days (29 percent longer
than intended by statute).
The Commission is not fulfilling its statutory responsibility to consider

whether there is “good cause,” and the potential effect on the rights of
the parties, before granting extensions, but, based on our audit work,
has granted all requests as a matter of routine.
Further, when the Division initiates a time extension request for

additional time its staff need to complete work, and the Commission
approves the requests, the Division and Commission could deprive the
parties of the ability to request time extensions for their own needs, as
intended by statute. The Division told us that when parties ask for
additional time to submit information during the investigation (e.g., for
more than the 30 days established in Division policy for the respondent
to provide a position statement or the complainant to provide a
rebuttal), staff often allow the parties more time. However, the Division
maintains no comprehensive records of this process so we could not
verify how often this occurs, how much additional time staff allow the
parties, or whether such allowances contribute to the Division’s
initiation of statutory time requests.
36
RECOMMENDATION 2
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) should ensure

that it is fulfilling its statutory obligations regarding time extension
requests by modifying its rules and/or policies to:
A Prohibit the Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division) from

initiating requests for time extensions through the practice of staff
asking the complainant and respondent parties to make requests to
the Commission on the Division’s behalf.
B Require all extension requests to articulate the reason the party

needs more time.
C Outline how it will assess each time extension request to ensure

consideration of the factors cited in rule and how it will document
the assessment’s adherence with rules.
RESPONSE
A PARTIALLY AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 2019.
The Commission disagrees that the Division is initiating requests for

time extensions through the practice of staff asking the complainant
and respondent parties to make requests to the Commission on the
Division’s behalf. The Commission’s rules provide that an extension
may be granted when there have been “administrative delays that
would adversely affect the right of any party” and when “there are
other factors outside of the control of any party that caused delays
in the administrative process” [3 CCR 708-1, Rule 10.7(B)].
As such, when administrative delays arise, Division staff contact the

parties to communicate both that there are delays and that either
party may request an extension. The Division asks whether either
37
party would like an extension and instructs the party how to request

one. This is a critical step because the parties, absent communication
from the Division, have no way of knowing there are administrative
delays and because unrepresented parties rely on the Division to help
them understand the process.
The Commission agrees that it will work with the Division to

implement a plan to clarify how information is presented from staff
to the parties, how the parties’ requests to the Commission are
articulated, and how the Commission, or its delegate, analyzes and
records whether good cause for an extension is or is not shown.
AUDITOR’S ADDENDUM
The Commission’s response does not indicate that it will not

prohibit the Division’s practice of asking complainant and
respondent parties to make time extension requests on the Division’s
behalf. As described on PAGE 31 of the report, our audit work found
that a significant majority (88 percent) of the sample of requests we
reviewed were initiated by the Division to allow its staff extra time.
This practice does not appear compliant with statutory intent or a
plain reading of the law.
B PARTIALLY AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 2019.
The Commission agrees and will implement rules or policies to

ensure and implement an appropriate process so that the Division
receives from the requestor, and subsequently provides to the
Commission or its delegate, an articulation of any reason for which
a request for an extension of time has been requested.
The Commission’s response is unclear regarding what aspect of the

recommendation it does not agree to comply with.
38
C PARTIALLY AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: NOVEMBER 2019.

The Commission remains committed to fulfilling its statutory

obligations regarding extension requests. The Commission also
remains committed to ensuring that both parties to an appeal receive
updates regarding administrative delays and the options available to
a party when such delays, or other factors outside either party’s
control, would adversely affect the rights of either party. The
Commission will develop clearer policies to document the need for
any extension, the factors that support an extension, and the process
of communicating that to the decision-maker for the Commission.
The Commission’s response is silent on whether the Commission

will modify its rules or policies to describe how it will assess each
time extension request to ensure compliance with its own rules, and
document its assessment. Our audit work found no evidence that
the Commission applied its rules to consider whether there was
“good cause” for approving any of the sample of time extension
requests we reviewed. Statute specifies that time extensions may be
granted by the Commission for “good cause.”
39
RECOMMENDATION 3

The Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division) should discontinue
initiating time extension requests that statute allows the complainant
and respondent parties to make. If the Division determines that it
cannot complete its work without reliance on time extensions, it should
work with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) to seek
legislative change to authorize the Division to request extensions
directly. Alternatively, if the Division does not agree that it should
discontinue initiating time extension requests to complete its work, the
Division should work with the Commission to obtain a written opinion
from the Attorney General’s Office affirming that its practice is within
statutory requirements and intent.
RESPONSE
PARTIALLY AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JANUARY 2020.
Yes, the Division agrees it should not be using requests for extensions
solely for its benefit. The Division does not agree to discontinue
initiating time extension requests. The Division believes that its current
practice preserves the rights of the parties and allows for the completion
of the administrative process. The Division will develop clearer policies
to document the need for any extension, the factors that support an
extension, and the process of communicating to the decision-maker on
behalf of the Commission. The Division remains committed to fulfilling
its statutory obligations regarding extension requests. The Division
agrees to work with the Commission to obtain a written opinion from
the Attorney General’s Office affirming any and all practices going
forward are within statutory requirements and intent.
The Division would like to note that it has been operating under the
authority that the Commission's rules allow for extensions to be granted
when there have been “administrative delays” (including but not limited
40
to: either party’s request to submit evidence such as comparative data,

affidavits, witness statements, personnel files, photos or other relevant

items; the appeal process; statutorily required conciliation in the event
of a probable cause finding; and complaint filing by the Attorney
General’s office when a case is set for hearing) that would adversely
affect the rights of any party” and when “there are other factors outside
the control of any party that caused delays in the administrative
process.” [3 CCR 708-1, Rule 10.7(B)].
The Division’s response indicates that it will not discontinue its practice
of initiating time extension requests to complete its own work. Statutes
intend that parties to a complaint have the chance to request more time
for their own needs; statutes do not contemplate extensions for the
Division and Commission. Instead, Section 24-34-306(11), C.R.S., sets
a time limit of 270 days to complete the administrative process,
including all of the investigative work the Division conducts. Further,
though the Division states that its current practice preserves the rights
of the parties, the Division deprives parties of their statutory right to
request extensions for their own needs, as intended by statute.
41
DATA MANAGEMENT

The Division uses two primary mechanisms to capture information on
complaints. First, its online civil rights case filing and management
system, CaseConnect, contains comprehensive information on each
case, primarily documented in detailed written staff notes about the
work the Division conducts on a case from filing through completion,
as well as copies of Division correspondence with the parties and case
documentation provided by the parties. Second, the Division uses Excel
spreadsheets to track certain case information, such as when complaints
are filed, when the Division issues a determination, when cases are
mediated, and when the Commission reviews cases for appeal and
hearing worthiness.
WHAT AUDIT WORK WAS PERFORMED,

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE, AND HOW
WERE THE RESULTS MEASURED?
We reviewed the case information in CaseConnect and the Division’s
spreadsheets for all 1,292 complaints the Division completed from
November 2016 through December 2018, and interviewed Division
staff and staff from the Governor’s Office of Information Technology
(OIT) who assist the Division in managing the CaseConnect system. We
also reviewed the Division’s annual report for Fiscal Year 2018, the
Division’s performance report for Fiscal Year 2018, and the Division’s
performance plan for Fiscal Year 2019. Finally, we reviewed the
Commission’s use of data for its statutory duties.
The purpose of our audit work was to evaluate the Division’s and
Commission’s use of case information as part of their internal control
structure. The Colorado Office of the State Controller has directed all
state agencies to follow the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government (Green Book). The Green Book defines internal control, in
part, as a process implemented by an agency’s management to provide
reasonable assurance that the objectives of the agency will be achieved,
42
including the objectives of operating efficiency and effectively; reliably

reporting information for internal and external use; and complying with
applicable laws and regulations. The Green Book establishes some
specific principles for internal controls related to information and
communication [Green Book, Principles 13 through 15]:
 Management should maintain information that is complete,

appropriate, relevant, and accessible.
 Management should use information to make informed decisions

and evaluate the agency’s performance in achieving key objectives.
 Management should communicate information externally so that

external parties can help the agency achieve its objectives.
Furthermore, the Commission has an overarching duty to study the

extent, character, and causes of the discriminatory practices defined in
Colorado’s civil rights laws and formulate plans for the elimination of
those practices. Statute lists a number of specific expectations for the
Commission in fulfilling this duty, including issuing educational
information and making recommendations to the Governor and
General Assembly for policies or legislation concerning discrimination
[Section 24-34-305, C.R.S.].

WORK IDENTIFY AND WHY DID THEY
OCCUR?
From November 2016, when the Division implemented CaseConnect,
through to the end of our audit period (June 2019), the Division did not
maintain case information that was accessible in any aggregated form
to support its decision-making, achievement of objectives, or reliable
external reporting.
First, although CaseConnect contains comprehensive information

about each complaint, and we found no indications of any significant
problems with the accuracy or completeness of the data in
43
CaseConnect, the Division cannot extract any type of aggregated data

from the system for management purposes, in part because the
information that staff enter into CaseConnect is narrative, rather than
in data fields that can be aggregated. For example, the Division cannot
query CaseConnect or program it to produce reports that:
 Show how many cases were opened or closed in a specific time

period.
 Show how many closed cases were completed within statutory

deadlines (as discussed in the TIMELINESS OF INVESTIGATIVE
ACTIVITIES finding).
 Show trends, in aggregate, of types of cases filed over a specified

timeframe by location and outcome.
The Commission told us that it does not study the extent, character,
and causes of discriminatory practices, as required by statute, to help
identify policies or legislation that could address them. However, if the
Commission began carrying out this statutory duty, the limitations we
describe above would hinder its ability to use actual information on
discrimination complaints to draw conclusions or make policy or
legislative recommendations.
Second, the Division reported that it did not design the spreadsheets,
and that they have not been used to provide management with aggregate
case data. For example, the spreadsheets do not contain some
information that is important for management’s use, such as the date
the Division completed its work for every case, and many of the cells
capture narrative information (e.g., notations such as “placed on hold
per request”), rather than quantitative data that can be used for sorting
or analyzing. We also found that some of the information in the
spreadsheets is not reliable. For example, some cases were documented
as having no probable cause but also had notes indicating that they were
settled; cases the Division determines as having no probable cause are
dismissed and do not move forward to attempt settlement. Other cases
were incorrectly recorded with duplicated numbers for cases that were
already in process.
44
CaseConnect was implemented primarily to allow for online complaint

filing. However, in accomplishing that intent, the Division lost its ability
to electronically track and aggregate complaint information in a single
automated system. According to the Division, it requested support from
the Department of Regulatory Agencies (Department) and OIT as far
back as June 2017 to modify CaseConnect to address its deficiencies in
providing information for management purposes. The Division
indicated that it is now working with OIT to update CaseConnect to
collect and report aggregate data for management purposes and that the
update should be in place by October 2019.

The lack of readily accessible aggregated case data impedes the
Division’s ability to evaluate its performance in complying with
applicable laws and regulations or achieving key objectives, as follows:
NOT HAVING READILY ACCESSIBLE AGGREGATE DATA ON COMPLAINTS

HINDERS THE COMMISSION’S ABILITY TO STUDY THE EXTENT,
CHARACTER AND CAUSES OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES. For example,
without being able to generate reports that show changes in the
aggregate number of employment discrimination cases filed over a
specified period, along with details such as where the alleged
discrimination occurred (e.g., which city or county), the type of
employer (e.g., professional, service sector), and the outcome, the
Commission lacks information to determine if the rate of employment
discrimination is changing, particularly in certain geographic locations
or industry sectors, and thereby make recommendations to help address
them.
THE DIVISION IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF IT IS MAKING PROGRESS ON

THE OBJECTIVE OF INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CASES COMPLETED ON
TIME. In its performance plans for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, the
Department established a State Measurement for Accountable,
Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government goal that the
Division would increase the number of cases it completed within the
270-day statutory deadline. Specifically, the Department set a goal to
45
increase the number of cases closed from 77 percent to 86 percent in

Fiscal Year 2018. The Division reported in its Fiscal Year 2018
performance evaluation that it had not met its 2018 goal; therefore, the
Department lowered the Division’s goal to 80 percent for Fiscal Year
2019. By not being able to query CaseConnect on start and end dates
for all cases, the Division cannot readily determine its progress against
these SMART goals. As discussed in the TIMELINESS OF INVESTIGATIVE
ACTIVITIES finding, for the 933 cases for which we could determine the
time elapsed from the filing of a complaint until it was closed by the
Division, the Division did not meet the statutory deadline for 367 cases
(39 percent). We used the Division’s spreadsheets to analyze the
Division’s timeliness because the data could not be extracted in
aggregate from CaseConnect.
THE COMMISSION AND DIVISION CANNOT ENSURE THAT THEY PROVIDE

RELIABLE REPORTS TO THE GOVERNOR AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Statute
requires the Commission to provide annual reports accounting to the
Governor for the discharge of its duties. The Division prepares and
submits the required report on behalf of the Commission. The annual
reports contain information on both the Division’s and Commission’s
activities, including the total numbers of complaints filed, mediations
conducted, cases completed, and appeals filed. We reviewed the Fiscal
Year 2018 annual report but could not verify the data it contained. The
Division told us that a former OIT staff member worked in
CaseConnect to extract the numbers for the report, but the Division had
no supporting documentation and could not replicate the process to
demonstrate the accuracy of the report.
46
RECOMMENDATION 4
The Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division) should ensure that the
planned updates to CaseConnect include modifications to allow the
Division to efficiently query the system or run reports to provide
information needed for management to achieve its objectives, comply
with statutes, and produce accurate external reports.
RESPONSE
AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JANUARY 2020.
Yes, the Division agrees that planned updates to CaseConnect should

include modifications to allow the Division to efficiently query the
system or run reports to provide information needed for management
to achieve its objectives, comply with statutes, and produce accurate
external reports.
The Division's staff continues to work collaboratively with OIT by

developing process maps, testing system capabilities, and spotting
system defects as they occur. This allows the Division to provide in
depth feedback to OIT in order to ensure that the aforementioned
improvements are made.
The Division will propose a plan to OIT in which OIT and the Director
will provide status updates from staff using the system and will raise
obstacles early and frequently to OIT. The Division would like to
continue these discussions with OIT for 3-6 months after the system's
release to ensure that the Division is confident in its use of the system
to serve the public.
47
RECOMMENDATION 5

After the Colorado Civil Rights Division has modified CaseConnect to
allow queries, in response to RECOMMENDATION 4, the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission should use the data available from CaseConnect to
study and make recommendations to address discrimination, as
required by statute.
RESPONSE
AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JANUARY 2020.
Assuming the State’s Office of Information Technology is

capable of modifying CaseConnect to make it useful for the
queries proposed during this audit, the Commission will use the
data made available from CaseConnect to study and make
recommendations to address discrimination.
48
CIVIL RIGHTS
COMMISSION
TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
The Commission is responsible for making decisions on complaints in
the following two situations:
 ON APPEAL. When the Division determines that there is no probable

cause on a complaint, the complainant has the right to appeal the
determination to the Commission. The complainant must complete
an appeal form that states their reason for appealing and submit it to
the Division. The Division typically assigns a single commissioner to
review the appeal and makes the case documentation compiled
during the Division’s investigation available to the assigned
commissioner. After the review, the assigned commissioner makes a
recommendation to the full Commission on how to decide the
appeal. The Commission then decides, by vote, to uphold the
Division’s determination, remand the case back to the Division for
further investigation, or overturn the Division’s determination.
 WHEN PARTIES ARE UNABLE TO SETTLE a case during mandatory

mediation pursuant to Section 24-34-306(2)(b)(II), C.R.S., for which
the Division determined there was probable cause. The Commission
reviews employment and public accommodation cases that were not
settled by the parties to determine whether they should undergo an
administrative law hearing. Division staff coordinate with the
Attorney General’s office to present a recommendation to the
Commission for whether to set the case for hearing. The Division and
Commission refer to these as “hearing worthiness” determinations.
The Commission can decide to set such cases for hearing or dismiss
them. According to Section 24-34-504(4.1), C.R.S., all housing cases
that are not settled must be set for hearing.
49
In Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018, the Commission decided on 176 cases

that were appealed and 42 cases for hearing worthiness (for a total of
218 cases).
WHAT AUDIT WORK WAS PERFORMED

AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE?
We reviewed executive session minutes for all 28 meetings the
Commission held in Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018, attended one
commission meeting in-person, and listened to audio recordings of three
Commission meetings held in Fiscal Year 2019. We also reviewed a
random sample of five case files, out of the 11 employment and public
accommodation discrimination cases from Fiscal Year 2018 that the
Commission reviewed for hearing worthiness. We reviewed the sample
for documentation of the process commissioners used and the factors
they considered when making appeal and hearing worthiness decisions.
Finally, we interviewed commissioners and Division staff, and reviewed
statute, rules, and Commission policies related to Commission decision-
making.
The purpose of the audit work was to determine if the Commission is

transparent and accountable in applying its own rules and policies to
decide appeals and hearing worthiness cases.
HOW WERE THE RESULTS OF THE

AUDIT WORK MEASURED?
The Colorado General Assembly and citizens expect state entities to
operate in a transparent and accountable manner. This expectation is
expressed clearly in the State Measurement for Accountable,
Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act, which states,
“It is important that state government be accountable and transparent
in such a way that the general public can understand the value received
for the tax dollars spent by the state” [Section 2-7-201(1)(a), C.R.S.].
50
The importance of transparency and accountability are reflected in

other statutes as well, including the following:
 THE COLORADO SUNSHINE LAW. Section 24-6-402, C.R.S.,

establishes a variety of requirements for state public bodies, such as
the Commission, to carry out their work in an open manner. For
example, the law requires that such bodies hold public meetings; only
take official action, such as voting, in open meetings; and maintain
meeting minutes that are made available to the public and that record
any official action, including votes.
 STATUTES RELATED TO MEETINGS OF STATE BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS. Section 24-3.5-101, C.R.S., expresses the General
Assembly’s intent that boards and commissions operate in a
transparent manner that makes their work open to public scrutiny
and involvement, stating, “The general assembly declares that public
participation in government produces better government” and
recommends actions boards and commissions should take to
promote such participation.
In some cases, a government entity’s need to preserve the confidentiality

of individual citizens creates an impediment to full public transparency.
For example, statute states “the members of the commission…shall not
disclose the filing of a [complaint], the information gathered during the
investigation, or the efforts to eliminate such discriminatory or unfair
practice” except under limited circumstances [Section 24-34-306(3),
C.R.S.]. The Commission interprets this statute as prohibiting
discussion of complaints in open meetings and therefore conducts most
of its business in executive session. When protecting privacy prevents a
government entity from conducting business in the open, audits can
provide a measure of transparency and accountability by gathering and
analyzing evidence about the entity’s operations. Generally Accepted
Government Auditing Standards (known as the Yellow Book) note that
government auditing is essential to provide accountability and help
“legislators, oversight bodies, those charged with governance, and the
public…know whether (1) management and officials manage
government resources and use their authority properly and in
51
compliance with laws and regulations; (2) government programs are

achieving their objectives and desired outcomes; and (3) government
services are provided effectively, efficiently, economically, ethically, and
equitably.” [Yellow Book, Sections 1.02 and 1.03].
The General Assembly recognized the need for audits of the Division and
Commission when it passed House Bill 18-1256, which requires two
performance audits between 2019 and 2024. In committee hearings on
the bill, one General Assembly member noted that the audit requirements
in the bill were important to help address concerns regarding the
transparency and accountability of the Commission’s operations,
particularly given the need for confidentiality in much of its work.
For audits to be effective in providing transparency and accountability,

the audited entity must maintain records the audit can review. The
Green Book establishes standards that all Colorado state entities,
including the Commission, are expected to follow and requires that they
clearly document all significant events so that the documentation can be
examined [Green Book, Principal 10.03].

WORK IDENTIFY AND WHY DID THEY
OCCUR?
The Commission does not operate in a manner that allows for
transparency or accountability. We attempted to evaluate the
Commission’s adherence to their rules and policies in making decisions
on appeals and hearing worthiness cases but could not draw
conclusions, as explained below.
FOR CASES AND MEETINGS WE REVIEWED, THE COMMISSION HAS NO

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ITS PROCESSES TO DECIDE APPEALS OR
HEARING WORTHINESS CASES. Specifically, for the 218 cases the
Commission reviewed in Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 (176 appeals and
42 hearing worthiness), the Commission had no documents indicating
52
how it considered and decided the outcome of each case. Furthermore,

for the one commission meeting we attended in-person and the three
meetings we listened to audio recordings of, the Commission had no
audio evidence of how it considered and decided the outcome of each
case. The Commission has outlined the following elements that it states
it will consider when reviewing cases, but because the Commission
maintained no documentary evidence of its review, we could not
evaluate its application of these rules or policies:
 The only grounds for successful appeals are that the Division
disregarded or misapplied applicable law or available evidence or
that new evidence is available that was not available during the
investigation [Commission Rules, Section 10.6(A)(1), 3 CCR 708-1].
 The Commission will consider various factors to determine hearing

worthiness, including the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of
success of the case, the impact of a decision beyond the specific
complaint, and the cost of a hearing [Commission Policy V(B)].
The Commission had no documents from their assessment of any of the

appeals or hearing worthiness cases they reviewed, such as notes
reflecting (1) an assigned commissioner considered the elements in rule
or policy, or (2) the Commission discussed the cases, including how they
aligned with rule or policy, during meetings. Furthermore, for the four
executive sessions we listened to (three audio recordings and one
meeting we attended in person), where the Commission decided 13
appeals and six hearing worthiness cases, it did not discuss the factors
in rule or policy, and in fact conducted virtually no discussion of the
cases at all.
According to the Commission, it collectively bases its decisions on

appeals on the recommendation of the assigned commissioner, and its
decisions on hearing worthiness on recommendations provided by the
Commission’s Attorney General representative and Division staff. As a
result, the Commission has not seen a need to document its decision
making on appeals or hearing worthiness cases and how the factors
outlined in rule or policy are applied. With respect to discussion of
53
appeals or hearing worthiness cases, the commissioners reported that

they did not discuss the cases during meetings, including during
executive session meetings, because they feel that anything they say
might be construed as biased.
VOTING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. Based on our review of minutes and the

four meetings we listened to, the Commission votes on appeals and
hearing worthiness cases in executive session, rather than in open
meetings, in violation of the Sunshine Law, which states, “All
meetings…at which any public business is discussed or at which any
formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to
the public at all times” [Section 24-6-402(2)(a), C.R.S.]. Commissioners
told us that they did not know that statute requires voting on appeals and
hearing worthiness cases be done in open meetings, rather than in the
executive session meetings. Further, the Commission’s policies do not
specify that the commissioners’ votes need to be held in public session.
All six of the commissioners we interviewed told us that the

commissioners apply their rules and policies and function in an
equitable and consistent manner when making decisions on cases.

Because the Commission makes decisions in closed meetings, there is no
opportunity for independent observation of the fairness and consistency
of its operations. The lack of documentary evidence of its decision-
making compounds the problem, resulting in a process that is opaque
to Colorado citizens and policy makers. Even our audit is unable to
provide assurance that the Commission is operating in a fair and
accountable manner.
Further, the lack of discussion among commissioners about appeals and

hearing worthiness cases prior to voting prevents the commissioners
from considering the thoughts and experiences of other members as part
of the decision-making process. The Commission is statutorily-designed
to represent a wide variety of experiences and perspectives, including
those of business, government, and individuals who have been or may
54
be discriminated against due to disability, color, sex, sexual orientation,

national origin, ancestry, marital status, religion, or age. When the

commissioners do not share their knowledge and experience with one
another, they do not use that breadth of perspectives to help in their
collective decision-making.
Finally, the Commission’s practice of basing their decisions almost

entirely on recommendations from individuals (i.e., a single
commissioner for appeals or their Attorney General representative or
Division staff on hearing worthiness cases), then taking a vote without
Commission deliberation, could be misleading. The public and policy
makers could easily interpret the Commission’s vote as meaning that
the cases underwent thorough consideration and discussion by the
entire Commission.
55
RECOMMENDATION 6

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission should operate in a transparent
and accountable manner and implement rules or policies while
maintaining necessary confidentiality, with respect to appeals and cases
it considers for hearing worthiness, by:
A Documenting the consideration of each appeal and hearing

worthiness case that demonstrates the application of the factors in
rules and policies.
B Discussing the factors in rules and policies, and commissioners’

perspectives on how these factors should be applied to each appeal
and hearing worthiness case, and use the discussion as a basis for
decision-making.
C Voting on appeals and hearing worthiness cases during open

meetings, in accordance with statute.
RESPONSE
A PARTIALLY AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: OCTOBER 2019.
Because the Commission functions in both a quasi-judicial and

quasi-prosecutorial roles, the Commission’s confidential discussions
are not subject to documentation. The Commission will not engage
in creating a record of its deliberations.
The Commission will engage in training to review and discuss the

factors applicable in determining hearing worthiness and in
reviewing decisions on appeal so as to engage in appropriate
discussion during its confidential meetings.
56
The Commission will vote on hearing worthiness and decisions on

appeals in public session and will have whatever level of discussion

is appropriate or necessary to inform its vote on any motion put
forth by any Commissioner. The Commission will continue to
record its formal actions in its minutes.
The Commission’s response indicates that it will not document its

consideration of appeals and hearing worthiness cases. Our audit
work found that the Commission has no documentation of its
processes to decide cases for appeal or hearing worthiness, and as
such, is not operating in a manner that allows for transparency or
accountability. The Commission’s plan to engage in training is not
relevant to the recommendation to document that it considers and
applies the factors in policies and rules when it makes
determinations about civil rights cases.
B PARTIALLY AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: OCTOBER 2019.
As noted above, the Commission functions in quasi-judicial and

quasi-prosecutorial roles. The Commission’s deliberations in these
roles are not subject to review.
The Commission, however, agrees to focus on expanded training

with regard to the factors that apply to appeals and hearing
worthiness and use the training to propose modifications to any
existing rules or policies that need modification to permit more
robust conversation and consideration of different perspectives
during its deliberations in executive session.
The Commission’s response indicates it will not discuss the factors

in its own rules and policies for considering cases as a basis for
decision-making, as recommended. Our audit work found that there
57
is no evidence that the Commission follows its own rules and

policies to decide cases for appeal or hearing worthiness. The
Commission’s response indicates it will continue to decide cases
based on the recommendations of a single commissioner or of its
Attorney General representative and Division staff, rather than on
the Commission members engaging in discussion.
C PARTIALLY AGREE. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: OCTOBER 2019.
Subject to the qualifications set forth in the previous two parts, the
Commission will make determinative votes on appeals before it and
whether to set matters for hearing in open session.
The Commission’s response is unclear regarding what aspect of the

statutory requirement (i.e., that it take formal action, such as a vote,
in public meeting) it does not agree to comply with.
APPENDIX A
PROTECTED CLASSES AND PROHIBITED ADVERSE ACTIONS IN COLORADO, BY SETTING
EMPLOYMENT HOUSING PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 1
PROTECTED CLASS
Age 2 ●
Color ● ● ●
Disability 3 ● ● ●
Familial Status 4 ●
Marital Status ● ●
National Origin/Ancestry ● ● ●
Race ● ● ●
Religion or creed ● ● ●
Sex ● ● ●
Sexual Orientation ● ● ●
PROHIBITED ADVERSE ACTION
 Refusal to reasonably accommodate a  Refusal to reasonably accommodate a disability  Restricting access or applying differential
disability or pregnancy, childbirth, or  Refusal to show, rent, or sell pricing
related condition  Unequal application of terms and conditions or  Refusal of service or sale of goods
 Refusal to hire or promote discriminatory financing  Publishing or displaying any kind of notice
 Discharge or Demotion  Making inquiry or record, either verbally or in or advertisement that indicates that services
 Harassment writing, of the protected class will be denied, or that an individual’s
 Unequal application of employment terms  Steering 5 or misrepresenting availability presence is unwelcome, due to the protected
and conditions  Advertising discriminatory preference class
 Unequal compensation  Retaliation  Retaliation
 Printing or circulating any statement,
advertisement, or publication that
expresses, either directly or indirectly, any
limitation, specification, or discrimination
as to the protected class
 Retaliation
SOURCE: Office of the State Auditor analysis of Sections 24-34-301 through 803, C.R.S.
1
A place of “public accommodation” means any place of business engaged in sales to and offering services, facilities, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to businesses such as restaurants, swimming pools, hospitals,
schools, and parks. A place of public accommodation does not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes [Section 24-34-601(1), C.R.S.].
2
Specifically, age as a protected class includes individuals who are 40 and over [Section 24-34-301(1), C.R.S.].
3
“Disability” includes both physical and mental impairment [Section 24-34-501(1.3), C.R.S.]. Further, an individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a service animal without being required to pay an extra charge in any place
of employment, housing, or public accommodation [Section 24-34-803, C.R.S.].
4
“Familial status” means one or more individuals who are younger than 18 years of age and living with a parent or legal custodian. This also applies to a pregnant person or someone who is in the process of securing legal custody of an individual
younger than 18 [Section 24-34-501(1.6), C.R.S.].
5
“Steering” refers to the practice of guiding renters or buyers to specific housing areas [Section 24-34-502(1)(h)(i), C.R.S.].
A-1

Colorado Auditor Report: Colorado Civil Rights Commission Management of Civil Rights Discrimination Complaints

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colorado Auditor Report: Colorado Civil Rights Commission Management of Civil Rights Discrimination Complaints

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colorado Auditor Report: Colorado Civil Rights Commission Management of Civil Rights Discrimination Complaints

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS

AUGUST 2019 PERFORMANCE AUDIT

LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE

Senator Nancy Todd – Chair Representative Lori Saine – Vice-Chair

Representative Rod Bockenfeld Senator Paul Lundeen

OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR

Dianne E. Ray State Auditor

Monica Bowers Deputy State Auditor

Vickie Heller Audit Manager

Kate Shiroff Team Leader

Cain Day Auditors

AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE AT

A BOUND REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED BY CALLING THE

PLEASE REFER TO REPORT NUMBER 1820P WHEN REQUESTING THIS REPORT

DIANNE E. RAY, CPA

Members of the Legislative Audit Committee:

OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR

Division Complaint Process 5

Timeliness of Investigative Activities 16

Time Extension Requests 29

Civil Rights Commission Transparency and Accountability 48

KEY FINDINGS BACKGROUND

Colorado law [Sections 24-34-301 through 805, C.R.S.]

The Civil Rights Division (Division) and Civil Rights Commission

(Commission), within the Department of Regulatory Agencies

 Are filed by a member of a class that is protected under statute,

 Allege the respondent (the individual or entity the complainant

 Allege discrimination in one of the three areas outlined in statute,

EXHIBIT 1.1 shows the total number of discrimination complaints filed,

EXHIBIT 1.1. DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS FILED

REPORT OF THE COLORADO STATE AUDITOR

DIVISION COMPLAINT PROCESS

To formally file a civil rights discrimination complaint, which becomes

After a complaint is filed, the Division begins its investigative process,

 PROBABLE CAUSE. When the Division determines that probable cause

exists, statute requires the parties to participate in a mandatory

 NO PROBABLE CAUSE. When the Division determines that no

EXHIBIT 1.2 illustrates this process.

EXHIBIT 1.2. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION PROCESS

REPORT OF THE COLORADO STATE AUDITOR

PROBABLE CAUSE— MANDATORY MEDIATION

COMPLAINT CONTINUES TO COMMISSION REVIEW

SOURCE: Office of the State Auditor analysis of the Division’s process.

COMMISSION REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS

holding a hearing compared to possible relief to determine if an

Administrative Law Hearing should be set. For housing complaints,

Under Section 24-34-305(1)(d), C.R.S., the Commission can

 APPEALS. For complaints the Division dismisses as having “no

► Uphold the dismissal (complaint is closed).

► Remand the complaint to the Division for further investigation.

► Reverse the Division’s determination (complaint is then treated

In Fiscal Year 2018, the Commission reviewed 76 appeals.

EXHIBIT 1.3 shows the number of filed complaints that underwent

Division and Commission review and resulted in the outcomes

REPORT OF THE COLORADO STATE AUDITOR

DIVISION MADE POST-INVESTIGATION FINDING

DIVISION HELPED PARTIES RESOLVE THROUGH