Court Opinions: Colorado Supreme Court Publicly Censures Former Juvenile Court Presiding Judge for Firing an Employee Who Reported Concerns Over His Alcohol Impairment at Work

Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.

Matter of David B. Woods


In this judicial disciplinary proceeding against former Presiding Judge of the Denver Juvenile Court David Woods, the Colorado Supreme Court considered the recommendations of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline to adopt Woods’ stipulation for public censure. In a per curiam opinion in which Justice Brian Boatright didn’t participate, the court adopted the stipulation and publicly censured Woods. 

The commission alleges that Woods, before resigning from the bench on Feb. 9, was at times impaired by alcohol while working and that a subordinate employee reported concerns about this to the employee’s supervisors in the spring of 2019. 

The commission further alleges that those supervisors shared the employee’s concerns with Woods, who then fired the employee for reporting these concerns.

Woods admits to the above allegations. However, he offers as mitigation that, before terminating the employee, he consulted with the judicial department’s human resources team, who prepared the communications to the employee regarding termination. Woods asserts that HR informed him that it was permissible to terminate the reporting employee. Woods further asserts that he believed that a judicial department lawyer was aware of the communications to the employee. 

After the reporting employee’s resignation/termination, rumors circulated among Denver Juvenile Court staff that the reporting employee was terminated for reporting concerns about Woods’s alcohol impairment while working. For the next four years, no other Denver Juvenile Court staff formally reported concerns about Woods’s alcohol impairment at work because of a fear of retaliation. Woods asserts that, other than his discussions with HR personnel about the reporting employee’s termination, he never discussed the reasons for the reporting employee’s departure with anyone.

In 2023, several Denver Juvenile Court staff did ultimately report concerns to the judicial department that Woods was at times under the influence of alcohol while working. These reports were forwarded to the commission, and the commission opened an investigation into Woods, which led to his temporary suspension from the bench on Dec. 21, 2023. 

The commission asserts that it is irrelevant that Woods received advice from HR indicating that Woods could terminate the reporting employee legally. Woods, as a judge, should have known, despite any advice he received from HR, that it was both illegal and unethical to terminate an employee for formally reporting concerns about Woods’ alcohol impairment at work. 

The commission also asserts that Woods should have known that it was a violation of Colorado’s Judicial Code of Ethics to be under the influence of alcohol while working. 

People v. Travis Barnett

The Colorado Supreme Court held that a license plate registered to a different vehicle than the one it is affixed to provides reasonable suspicion of motor vehicle theft. The state Supreme Court found that the deputies’ investigatory stop in this case and their subsequent order to Travis Barnett and his passenger to exit the vehicle were also lawful. 

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for additional findings regarding how the deputies discovered the glass pipe and further ruling on the propriety of the search. 

Kristy Archuleta v. Matt Roane

In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed whether a public entity may deny inspection of public records because the requestor is in litigation with the public entity and the records are related to the ongoing litigation. 

The court concluded that nothing in the Colorado Open Records Act permits a public entity to deny inspection of documents simply because the requestor is litigating against the public entity. The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure also do not prohibit a litigant from using CORA to inspect public records. 

The court concluded Matt Roane’s status as a litigant should not have prevented him from obtaining records under CORA.

Previous article2024 Colorado 200
Next articleCourt Opinions: US Supreme Court Denies Certs in Second Amendment, Affirmative Action, Parental Rights Cases

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here