Bill Summary
HB26-1054 creates a new state “general duty” workplace safety law that tracks federal OSHA’s general duty clause as of September 1, 2025, then builds a Colorado enforcement and lawsuit system on top of it. It expands who can sue, increases penalties, and gives the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics broad rulemaking authority to create or replace safety standards when federal rules change.
- Requires employers to keep workplaces “free from recognized hazards,” interpreted consistent with federal OSHA’s interpretation of the general duty clause as of September 1, 2025.
- Adds a broad state-level duty to provide “reasonable and adequate protection” and comply with workplace health and safety standards adopted by state rule.
- Authorizes civil lawsuits by the attorney general, the division, a labor organization (including certain community-based nonprofits), or a person aggrieved by a violation.
- Allows injunctions and stop work orders. If work is limited or stopped, the employer must reassign workers or pay at least 10 regular working days at the regular rate of pay if workers cannot work due to the order.
- Allows statutory damages up to $1,000 per violation, up to $10,000 for repeat violations, and up to $70,000 per violation for willful violations or “plain indifference.” It also authorizes separate penalties in the same ranges.
- Creates a continuously appropriated Workplace Health and Safety Fund funded by penalties to support enforcement, education, and rulemaking. Money remains in the fund year to year.
Position: Oppose
Principle: Worker safety is non-negotiable, but government should write clear rules, respect due process, and avoid vague standards that turn compliance into a courtroom contest.
Local impact: In Weld County, employers range from family shops to major job sites. When standards are unclear and enforcement is built around private lawsuits and escalating penalties, the costs land on paychecks, prices, and hiring decisions.
Action: I oppose HB26-1054 as introduced because it expands litigation and bureaucracy instead of focusing on clear, predictable safety expectations and practical prevention.
Why I Am Taking This Position
This bill takes a serious issue and builds a bigger lawsuit machine and a bigger bureaucracy on top of it. That is not the same thing as making workplaces safer. One clean way to say it: if the standard is vague, the lawyers get rich and the rest of us get the bill.
First, the core duty is broad and hard to pin down. The bill requires workplaces to be “free from recognized hazards,” interpreted consistent with federal OSHA’s interpretation of the general duty clause as of September 1, 2025. Then it adds an additional duty to provide “reasonable and adequate protection.” Those phrases sound good, but they invite disputes over what is “recognized,” what is “reasonable,” and whose interpretation controls.
Second, enforcement is expanded far beyond the state. The bill authorizes civil actions not only by the attorney general and the division, but also by a labor organization, which includes community-based nonprofit membership organizations, and by any person aggrieved. That is a wide-open lane for litigation and leverage tactics that have little to do with preventing accidents.
Third, the stop work and pay requirement can hit employers hard. If a court issues an injunction or stop work order, the employer must reassign workers or pay at least 10 regular working days at the regular rate of pay if workers cannot work due to the order. For many small and mid-sized employers, reassignment is not always possible, and cash flow is not unlimited.
Fourth, the penalties escalate fast and can stack daily. The bill allows statutory damages and separate penalties up to $70,000 per violation in certain circumstances, and each day a violation continues constitutes a separate offense. That kind of structure pressures settlements and punishes paperwork problems the same way it punishes truly unsafe conduct.
Finally, the bill creates a continuously appropriated fund funded by penalties, with money carrying over year to year and not subject to typical limits. When enforcement is tied to a permanent penalty-funded stream, incentives get cloudy. Government should serve the public, not chase revenue.
We can protect workers without building an open-ended litigation and rulemaking system. Colorado should prioritize clear standards, technical assistance, targeted enforcement for bad actors, and due process that employers and workers can understand.
Call to Action – What You Should Do!
Contact your state representative and senator and ask them to vote no on HB26-1054 as introduced.
Also ask bill sponsors to tighten definitions, set clear and objective standards, and remove the self-funding penalty structure and litigation incentives that encourage gamesmanship.
