Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Termination (common law) in Colorado

6 min read

Published April 8, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify all citations with current official sources.

Overview

In Colorado, the statute of limitations for common-law wrongful termination is generally 2 years under C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a).

That 2-year deadline typically applies when your “wrongful termination” claim is brought using common-law theories (for example, tort-style or contract-related common-law causes of action), rather than claims created by a specific statute (such as many discrimination or retaliation claims under state or federal law).

Colorado courts look at the cause of action—the legal theory you are suing under—not just the label “wrongful termination.” Two cases with similar job-loss facts can have different deadlines depending on whether the claim is treated as common law or instead arises from a statutory scheme.

Note: This guide is for general information and timing awareness. It’s not legal advice, and the safest approach is to confirm the appropriate category for your specific claim with qualified counsel.

Limitation period

2 years is the baseline limitation period for many common-law wrongful termination claims in Colorado under C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a).

How the deadline is actually counted: accrual

Even when the law provides a length (like 2 years), Colorado law also uses accrual rules—meaning the clock usually starts when the claim matures (i.e., when you knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the claim, depending on the theory and circumstances).

In day-to-day practice, the accrual trigger often aligns with the employee’s termination date or the date the employee became aware that the employer’s conduct caused the injury. If you’re considering “discovery” arguments, be cautious: delayed accrual often becomes a fact question, and the “right” date can depend on what was known and when.

Common ways claims are framed (and why that matters)

Tort-style common-law wrongful termination
Where the claim is framed as wrongdoing beyond simple breach of contract, courts often treat it as falling within the 2-year limitation category under § 13-80-102(1)(a).
Contract-related common-law theories
If the claim is built around an agreement (for example, wages or benefits promised under an agreement), the limitation period can vary depending on how Colorado characterizes the contract claim (written vs. oral, and related classification issues). That may mean the 2-year bucket is not always the correct one.
Public policy / “bad faith” type theories
Even when claims are described using modern employment language, the deadline still depends on how the court categorizes the cause of action. Some scenarios may map back to the 2-year rule, while others can shift categories.

Quick deadline checklist

Before you rely on any deadline, sanity-check these items:

Key exceptions

Colorado timing rules are not always a clean “2 years from termination.” Certain doctrines can pause (toll) the clock or affect when the claim is treated as accruing.

Tolling and procedural or factual pauses

Common categories that sometimes matter include:

Equitable tolling (narrow circumstances)
Sometimes courts pause deadlines where extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing and the plaintiff did not simply “sit on rights.” This is highly fact-specific.
Fraudulent concealment
If the employer (or someone aligned with the employer) took steps to keep wrongful conduct hidden, it can affect accrual/timing arguments.
Statutory tolling (more common when the claim is statutory)
If your case involves an administrative process tied to a statutory claim, tolling may be relevant. For pure common-law claims, tolling can still come up, but you’ll want to confirm what doctrine actually applies to your posture.

Warning: Tolling is typically fact-sensitive. If you plan a timeline around tolling, keep careful records—termination paperwork, HR emails, notices of investigation, and any written communications that clarify when you learned the key facts.

Discrete acts vs. ongoing conduct

Many employment cases turn on whether the wrongful conduct is treated as:

a discrete act (often the termination date anchors the timing), or
part of an ongoing pattern (which can complicate when the claim is considered to have accrued, depending on the legal theory).

For “wrongful termination” claims, the termination itself is commonly the anchor for accrual, but you should still evaluate whether there were other relevant events that change how a court would define the claim.

Labeling risk: “wrongful termination” vs. the true cause of action

A practical pitfall is assuming the label controls the deadline. Courts often analyze the substance of the claim. If your complaint’s “wrongful termination” framing does not match the actual legal category, the limitation period may change.

So the first timing step should be: map your facts to the correct cause-of-action category, not just the common employment phrase.

Statute citation

For many common-law wrongful termination claims in Colorado, the key timing rule is:

**2 years under C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a)

When using DocketMath, you’ll generally input an accrual date and select the limitation category that matches your cause of action category (commonly the 2-year category tied to C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a) for common-law wrongful termination theories).

Also remember: Colorado has multiple limitation periods beyond the 2-year rule. If your claim is ultimately treated as a contract category or a statutory claim, the applicable section—and thus the deadline—may differ.

Use the calculator

DocketMath’s statute-of-limitations tool calculates a likely deadline based on the limitation period that matches the cause of action category you choose.

Primary CTA

**Open DocketMath statute-of-limitations

What inputs you’ll typically provide

To generate a deadline (for example, an “earliest filing date” or “deadline”), you’ll usually provide:

Accrual date (often the termination date or the date you knew/should have known the facts supporting the claim)
Limitation period category (for common-law wrongful termination, often the 2-year category consistent with C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a))

How outputs change when inputs change

In practical terms:

If you change…	The deadline output will…	Why
Accrual date moves 30 days later	Deadline moves 30 days later	The clock starts at accrual
Accrual date moves 30 days earlier	Deadline moves 30 days earlier	Earlier accrual starts the clock sooner
You select a different limitation category	Deadline length changes	Different categories use different time periods

Practical workflow (recommended)

Pitfall: Choosing the termination date as the accrual date can be wrong if the key wrongful facts were not known until later; but it can also be wrong to assume discovery accrual applies when the termination itself clearly put you on notice. Pick the date that best fits how Colorado would likely view accrual for your theory.

Sources and references

Start with the primary authority for Colorado and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101