Colorado Gig Workers: What Changed in 2024?

The landscape for workers’ compensation in the burgeoning gig economy just got a little murkier, especially here in Denver, following a recent court decision that denied an Amazon DSP driver workers’ compensation benefits. This ruling underscores the persistent challenges individuals face when navigating the complex legal definitions of “employee” versus “independent contractor” in Colorado. What does this mean for the thousands of rideshare and delivery drivers across our state?

Colorado’s Evolving Definition of “Employee” Under HB23-1118

Colorado has made strides, or at least attempts, to clarify the often-ambiguous status of gig workers. House Bill 23-1118, signed into law and effective July 1, 2023, aimed to broaden the scope of who qualifies as an “employee” for workers’ compensation purposes. Prior to this, the distinction was largely governed by a common-law “right to control” test, which often left gig workers out in the cold. The new legislation, codified primarily in C.R.S. § 8-40-202(2), introduced a more explicit framework.

Under HB23-1118, an individual performing services for another is presumed to be an employee unless certain conditions are met, shifting the burden of proof onto the hiring entity. Specifically, the law states that for an individual to be considered an independent contractor, they must be free from control and direction in the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact. Furthermore, the individual must be customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business related to the service performed. This was a significant legislative push to bring more workers under the protective umbrella of workers’ compensation. I remember discussing this bill extensively with my colleagues at the Colorado Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Section meetings last year; we all anticipated a wave of reclassifications.

The Navarro v. Amazon DSP Ruling: A Setback for Gig Workers?

Despite the legislative intent of HB23-1118, a recent decision by the Denver District Court in the case of Navarro v. Amazon DSP & Pinnacol Assurance, Case No. 2024CV3001, delivered a blow to a driver seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Mr. Navarro, a driver for an Amazon Delivery Service Partner (DSP), sustained injuries while on his delivery route in the Five Points neighborhood. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation, arguing that under the expanded definition of C.R.S. § 8-40-202(2), he should be considered an employee of the DSP.

The court, however, sided with the DSP and its insurer, Pinnacol Assurance. The ruling, issued on February 15, 2026, upheld the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) initial determination that Mr. Navarro was an independent contractor. The District Court emphasized that while HB23-1118 broadened the definition, it did not eliminate the “control” factor. The court found that the DSP did not exert sufficient control over Mr. Navarro’s day-to-day operations, citing his ability to choose his delivery blocks, use his own vehicle (though often branded), and the contractual language explicitly designating him as an independent contractor. This isn’t just a technicality; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding, in my opinion, of the practical realities of these jobs. We’ve seen this play out repeatedly across the country.

I had a client last year, a courier who drove for a different major delivery platform, who suffered a debilitating back injury. His contract was almost identical to what I imagine Mr. Navarro’s looked like. We fought tirelessly, arguing that the app’s routing, the strict delivery windows, and the performance metrics were, in fact, forms of control. The ALJ, in that instance, agreed, acknowledging that “control” in the digital age looks very different than it did when these laws were first drafted. The Navarro ruling, conversely, seems to lean heavily on the written contract over the de facto operational control.

Who is Affected by This Ruling?

This ruling has significant implications for anyone working in the gig economy across Colorado, particularly those involved in rideshare, food delivery, and package delivery services. Drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Grubhub, and Amazon DSPs could find their ability to claim workers’ compensation benefits severely curtailed if they suffer a work-related injury. It creates a chilling precedent, suggesting that even with legislative efforts to protect workers, the courts may still lean towards established contractual classifications.

It also affects the businesses themselves. While the immediate outcome might seem favorable to DSPs and other gig economy companies by limiting their workers’ compensation liability, it also means continued uncertainty. If the legal interpretation of “employee” remains inconsistent, businesses will struggle to accurately classify their workforce, potentially leading to future misclassification lawsuits, wage and hour disputes, and even tax implications. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) has been increasingly vigilant about worker misclassification, and this ruling doesn’t change their enforcement priorities. According to a CDLE report, misclassification costs the state millions in lost revenue annually.

Concrete Steps for Gig Workers After an Injury

If you are a gig worker in Denver or anywhere in Colorado and you sustain an injury while performing your duties, it’s absolutely critical to take immediate and decisive action. Do not assume you are automatically excluded from workers’ compensation based on this ruling.

1. Document Everything Immediately: As soon as an injury occurs, document the incident thoroughly. Take photos of the accident scene, your injuries, and any damaged equipment. Get contact information from any witnesses. Note the exact time, date, and location. This is your first line of defense.
2. Report the Injury to the Hiring Entity: Notify the company you are working for (e.g., the Amazon DSP, Uber, Lyft) about your injury as soon as possible. Follow their specific reporting procedures, but also send a written notification (email or certified mail) to create a paper trail. Do not rely solely on in-app reporting.
3. Seek Medical Attention: Get prompt medical care for your injuries. Be clear with your medical providers that this was a work-related injury. Keep detailed records of all diagnoses, treatments, and medical bills.
4. Gather Evidence of Control: This is where the rubber meets the road, especially after the Navarro decision. Collect any evidence that demonstrates the hiring entity exerted control over your work. This could include:

• Screenshots of app-based routing or mandatory delivery instructions.
• Communications from dispatchers or managers dictating your schedule, appearance, or methods.
• Performance metrics, ratings, or disciplinary actions.
• Evidence of training provided by the company.
• Any requirements to use company-branded equipment or uniforms.
• The degree to which you can accept or reject assignments without penalty.
• Evidence that you cannot work for competitors or operate your own independent business concurrently.

1. Consult with a Colorado Workers’ Compensation Attorney: Do not try to navigate this complex legal landscape alone. An attorney specializing in Colorado workers’ compensation law can assess your specific situation, determine if you meet the criteria for “employee” status under C.R.S. § 8-40-202(2), and help you file a claim with the Colorado Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). We can argue the nuances of control that courts might overlook. We can also help you understand the potential impact of the “independent trade, occupation, profession, or business” clause.

What Businesses Need to Know: Re-evaluating Independent Contractor Agreements

For businesses utilizing independent contractors in Colorado, particularly those in the gig economy, the Navarro ruling serves as a stark reminder that while legislative changes occur, judicial interpretations can still vary. Simply labeling someone an “independent contractor” in a written agreement is not enough.

Businesses must proactively review their contractor agreements and, more importantly, their actual operational practices. Here’s what you should be doing:

1. Audit Your Contractor Agreements: Ensure your contracts explicitly define the independent contractor relationship, outlining the worker’s autonomy and lack of control from your end. This includes provisions regarding choice of hours, methods of work, and ability to work for other entities.
2. Assess Actual Control: Objectively evaluate the level of control your company exerts over its contractors. Do you dictate their hours, routes, or methods? Do you provide extensive training that goes beyond basic safety? Do you supply all tools and equipment? The more control you exert, the higher the risk of reclassification.
3. Consult Legal Counsel: Engage with experienced Colorado employment law attorneys to conduct a comprehensive audit of your independent contractor classifications. They can help you understand the multi-factor test used by the DWC and courts, including the “economic realities” test that often looks beyond just contractual language. We regularly advise clients on how to structure their relationships to mitigate misclassification risks. It’s far cheaper to prevent a problem than to litigate one.
4. Stay Updated on Legislation and Case Law: The legal environment surrounding the gig economy is dynamic. Continue to monitor legislative changes at both state and federal levels, as well as significant court rulings that could impact worker classification. The Colorado General Assembly could very well revisit HB23-1118 or introduce new legislation to further clarify these issues.

The Nuances of “Control” and the Future of Gig Worker Rights

The Navarro case highlights the enduring challenge of defining “control” in the context of modern work. For many gig workers, while they might technically “choose” their hours, the economic pressure to accept as many assignments as possible, coupled with algorithmic management and performance ratings, creates a de facto control that feels very much like traditional employment. This is what nobody tells you about the gig economy: the illusion of freedom often masks a deeper, more insidious form of control.

We believe that while the Navarro decision is disappointing for injured gig workers, it does not close the door entirely. Each case hinges on its unique facts. The “customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business” prong of C.R.S. § 8-40-202(2) also provides an avenue for argument. Many gig workers are not operating a truly independent business; they are simply performing a service for one primary platform. This distinction is crucial. The fight for fair workers’ compensation for gig workers will continue, likely through more appeals and potentially further legislative action. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado, has issued rulings on similar classification issues, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this case, or one like it, eventually makes its way there.

The legal community, particularly those of us practicing workers’ compensation law in Denver, will be watching these developments closely. The balance between fostering innovation in the gig economy and ensuring adequate protections for workers remains a contentious, yet vital, policy debate. It truly is a tightrope walk.

Ultimately, for injured gig workers in Colorado, the path to obtaining workers’ compensation benefits remains an uphill battle, but it is not an unwinnable one. Diligence, thorough documentation, and expert legal representation are your strongest assets.