Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
Autumn Scardina filed a charge of discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. After finding probable cause that Masterpiece Cakeshop discriminated against Scardina, the division pursued conciliation efforts between the parties. Those efforts failed.
The commission noticed a hearing on Scardina’s charge within the statutory timeframe and commenced that hearing within 120 days. At that point, CADA required the commission to hold a hearing and to issue an order that met specific statutory requirements. But it didn’t do so. Instead, it entered a private settlement with Masterpiece Cakeshop and dismissed Scardina’s charge without her participation and without issuing the statutorily required order. Scardina then filed her discrimination claim anew in district court.
The Colorado Supreme Court held that the plain language of CADA didn’t permit Scardina to do so under these circumstances.
It reasoned that none of the pathways CADA offers to the district court — a division finding of no probable cause, the issuance of a right-to-sue letter at the complainant’s request, failure of the commission to take jurisdiction within the statutory timeframe, or failure of the commission to commence the hearing within the statutory timeframe — occurred in this case.
The state’s high court noted that Scardina should have instead challenged the commission’s conduct in the state’s Court of Appeals.
It vacated the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the case.