Any agreement by an individual to waive, release, or commute his or her rights to benefits or any other rights under articles 70 to 82 of this title 8 shall be void. Any agreement by any individual in the employ of any person or concern to pay all or any portion of an employer's premiums or surcharges required under articles 70 to 82 of this title 8 from the employer shall be void. No employer shall directly or indirectly make, require, or accept any deduction from wages to finance the employer's premiums or surcharges required from him or her or require or accept any waiver of any rights under articles 70 to 82 of this title 8 by any individual in his or her employ. Any employer or officer or agent of any employer who violates this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: L. 36, 3rd Ex. Sess.: p. 45, § 15. L. 37: p. 1269, § 11. CSA: C. 167A, § 15. L. 41: p. 799, § 15. CRS 53: § 82-10-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 82-10-1. L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 506, § 27, effective July 1. L. 2009: Entire section amended, (HB 09-1363), ch. 363, p. 1909, § 34, effective July 1. L. 2021: Entire section amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3143, § 97, effective March 1, 2022.
ANNOTATION
Requirements for waiver. Waiver in the strict legal sense requires a showing of intent and knowledge of material facts on the part of one surrendering his rights. Mtn. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dept. of Labor & Emp., 38 Colo. App. 298, 559 P.2d 252 (1976).
Agreement contrary to public policy. An agreement having the effect of a waiver or which would permit the employer and employee to construe the terms of the unemployment compensation statute is contrary to public policy. Mtn. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dept. of Labor & Emp., 38 Colo. App. 298, 559 P.2d 252 (1976).
A leave of absence agreement which did not contain any explicit relinquishment of claimant's rights to unemployment benefits did not by its terms contravene the prohibition of this section since there was no evidence that claimant intended to forego unemployment benefits, or that she knew her "leave of absence" status would preclude such a claim. Mtn. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dept. of Labor & Emp., 38 Colo. App. 298, 559 P.2d 252 (1976).
The fact that claimant agreed and understood that his employment would end at the expiration of a fixed term is not a basis for denying him benefits under the Colorado employment security act. Intermountain Jewish News, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 39 Colo. App. 258, 564 P.2d 132 (1977).