The state in January contracted with , a Denver firm that specializes in probing workplace issues, to investigate complaints within the department, according to a copy of the agreement obtained through an open records request.

While the department declined to elaborate on the nature of the $25,000 investigation, a review of internal complaints and interviews with seven current and former agency leaders and workers paint a picture of a toxic work environment that impacted the mental health of its staff. Leadership was abusive, inappropriate and demeaning, employees told The Denver Post. Several high-ranking members of the agency left under strained circumstances, with the state paying them money to avoid litigation.

“Not only are they ruining people’s lives,” said one former employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they still work for the state, “they’re destroying the state’s second-largest agency.”

All told, the Department of Human Services has paid departing employees nearly $2.8 million in settlement agreements since 2019, when Gov. Jared Polis’ administration took the reins. These cases have concerned alleged pay, age, gender and disability discrimination, whistleblower protection violations, and retaliatory firings, among other accusations.

“That place is a trainwreck,” said Mark Schwane, an employment attorney who frequently represents state workers. “It’s a disaster.”

Department of Human Services officials declined an interview request for this story and did not respond to a list of questions from The Post. In a statement, a spokesperson said the department does not comment on personnel matters, including any investigations tied to individual employees. The external probe remains ongoing.

Employees have a variety of resources to address workplace concerns, including submitting grievances or complaints to leadership, requesting mediation or submitting discrimination or workplace violence reports, said Haysel Hernandez, a department spokesperson.

If an investigation finds that a staff member violated policies or the law, the department takes “immediate action to remedy the situation,” she said in the statement.

“The Colorado Department of Human Services strives to establish a respectful, healthy workplace where all employees are valued and treated fairly,” Hernandez said.

‘So many concerns’

The Colorado Department of Human Services is a sprawling state agency with more than 4,800 employees, trailing only the Department of Corrections in size.

It’s the department of “people who help people,” leadership says, responsible for providing services to children and families, the disabled, and older adults. The agency also manages the state’s child welfare system, 12 youth detention and commitment centers, and two state mental hospitals.

The department’s first stated value: people first. But individuals who worked there say the agency’s own staff don’t seem to get that same treatment.

Those who have been interviewed as part of the outside investigation told The Post that the questions have largely centered on one person: , deputy executive director for operations and strategy.

Morrison referred to her leadership style as “slap and tickle,” which employees who spoke to The Post said made them uncomfortable. She also made inappropriate comments about people’s work statuses, staff said, reminding them that they could be fired at any time.

One staff member said Morrison told them they lacked “executive presence” and recommended they dress in such a way that required them to go beyond the organization’s official dress code. Others said the leader was known for making fun of others in team settings.

“She was very abusive as far as I’m concerned and used her power to intimidate people,” said the former employee who spoke of leadership ruining people’s lives.

Two former high-ranking department members specifically called out Morrison in internal complaints after leaving the agency.

AnneMarie Harper, the department’s former director of communications, cited “hostile and inequitable working conditions” that Morrison created and maintained “through a pattern of inconsistent expectations, inappropriate conduct and professional undermining and communication failures,” she wrote in an appeal and dispute form before the , which was obtained by The Post.

Harper declined an interview request for this story.

In January, another top official filed a complaint with the department’s Civil Rights Unit, alleging Morrison and two other leaders forced her to retire by creating an “intimidating and psychologically harmful (workplace) such that it affected her physical well-being.”

Kristen Withrow, the former associate director for the , which operates the state’s juvenile commitment and detention facilities, said she was left out of meetings, publicly humiliated and scapegoated for safety issues that went on in the youth centers. Her treatment at the end of her tenure was so bad, she wrote, that she applied for family and medical leave for the first time in her 30-year career to care for her health.

“I have so many concerns in the last nine months,” Withrow wrote in a February email included in her complaint. “…I’m just so sad about all of this.”

Withrow declined to talk to The Post about her departure.

Employees say they chose to work for the Department of Human Services because they cared deeply about the agency’s mission to help those less fortunate. But the longer they worked there, the more they realized that their own mental health suffered as a result.

Multiple people told The Post that their sleep suffered while in the job. Others began going to therapy to deal with all the work stress. One former staffer said they burst into tears during a job interview when asked why they left the department.

“The values espoused and printed all over the place, we don’t seem to know how to live those out,” said a current employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they still work for the department.

While Morrison received the bulk of the attention from the outside investigators, many of the former staffers said her boss, , also bore responsibility for the department’s toxic culture.

“If you’re not stopping it, you’re part of it,” the current employee said. “I think she is complicit. Katy can only do what she’s allowed to do.”

Barnes and Morrison, through a department spokesperson, declined interview requests for this story.

Millions in settlements

Barnes has also overseen the agency’s practice of paying out high-dollar settlements to departing staffers who challenged their terminations or brought claims in court or with the state personnel board.

The Post obtained all settlement agreements involving the Department of Human Services that concerned monetary payouts to employees since Polis took office in 2019. The department, during that span, reached financial agreements with at least 69 staffers, paying out a total of $2.8 million.

Those agreements spanned $500 on the low end to more than $400,000 to settle claims with a worker who filed a federal lawsuit.

In that 2020 suit, a psychologist working at the at Fort Logan alleged that her supervisor demonstrated “abusive and authoritarian behavior” toward the female psychologists at the facility and used false claims to demote her and go after her professional license.

In a 2019 federal complaint, the director of nursing at a Wheat Ridge facility for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities said she was paid less than her white and non-Asian colleagues for the same work. The director, who is Asian, said leadership retaliated against her after she brought grievances over the discriminatory pay.

The Department of Human Services ended up paying her $383,750 to settle the nursing director’s claims.

Over the past two years, the department has reached 26 agreements with staffers to avoid litigation. Many did not involve money and only dealt with whether an employee’s departure was designated as a termination or resignation.

Fourteen of these deals, though, involved state payouts, to the tune of $381,900. Only the Colorado Department of Corrections paid out more money — $502,702 — to its workers during the last two years.

Harper received $95,000 to resolve her claims. Another worker got $26,500 after alleging their termination was discriminatory. A third person negotiated $122,000 after saying his separation was retaliation in violation of the . One staffer obtained nearly $40,000 to resolve civil rights and charges based on disability discrimination.

Some, though not all, agreements involved nondisparagement clauses, which prohibit the sides from making negative statements about each other. Several also included nondisclosure language, mandating that neither side discuss the settlement negotiations with a third party.

The Department of Human Services needs wholesale change at the top, said Schwane, the employment lawyer. The department rewards loyalty over quality of work, he said, which results in anyone giving negative feedback being pushed out.

“They’re reliable sychophants,” Schwane said.

Settlement agreements are used for a variety of reasons, and do not necessarily indicate wrongdoing by the department or employee, Hernandez, the agency spokesperson, said in a statement. These deals “ensure a fair process, and, when needed, a reasonable opportunity to resolve disagreements or provide a supportive transition out of the agency,” she said.

“The department continues to welcome feedback from staff and is committed to a positive, productive and successful workplace culture that helps employees conduct their best work,” Hernandez said.

Heather Wilcox, a 20-year state employee, said she was administratively dischargedÌęfrom her communications job with — part of the Department of Human Services — after she took an extended leave following the deaths of both her parents and one grandparent.

Her supervisors questioned her about her leave and rejected her accommodation requests when she tried to return to work, she said in an interview.

Wilcox lost her hearing as a child and received cochlear implants — a fact that made her deaf but “not deaf enough” for some in the community, she said. A job helping Colorado’s deaf and hard-of-hearing was a dream come true. Until it wasn’t.

“The whole thing was horrifically abusive,” Wilcox said. “My own community did this to me.”

Wilcox lost health insurance for her and her daughter. She says she feels blackballed as she applies for other jobs.

She filed a claim with the state personnel board, alleging her discharge was discriminatory. In March, the state agreed to let her resign, removed disciplinary memos from her file, and paid her $40,000 plus attorney fees to avoid a protracted legal dispute.

Wilcox wonders how she became so disposable after spending her entire career in public service.

“How do you treat people like that at CDHS?” she said.

The Jan. 13 recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell is a tentative win for state officials and a loss for the eight plaintiffs, which include four school districts, three charter schools, and one public education cooperative. A federal district court judge will now review the recommendation and make a final decision.

The by the conservative-leaning District 49 near Colorado Springs, after its school board passed a policy banning transgender girls from girls sports teams and transgender boys from boys sports teams.

The recommendation came the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in cases brought by two transgender athletes who oppose state laws barring transgender athletes from girls and women’s teams.

The high court¶¶Òőap conservative-leaning majority seemed open to upholding the state laws, according to national news outlets, but how broad or narrow such a ruling would be remains to be seen.

One of the defendants in the Colorado case, the Colorado High School Activities Association, in early December.

Dominguez Braswell’s recommendation, even if it¶¶Òőap affirmed by a district court judge, may not have much effect on high school sports in Colorado, because it doesn’t directly weigh in on the legitimacy of policies that ban transgender students from joining sports teams that match their gender identity. Rather, it says the districts and schools that filed the lawsuit don’t have the standing to sue the state on their own behalf or to sue on behalf of their students.

Michael Francisco, an attorney with the law firm First & Fourteenth, which is representing the plaintiffs, said he disagrees with Dominguez Braswell’s recommendation and looks forward to filing objections with the district court judge soon.

“This recommendation will not alter the course of this case or deter us from continuing this litigation to ensure every district in Colorado has the freedom to protect girls’ sports, safeguard student privacy, and uphold the spirit of Title IX,” he said in an emailed statement.

A spokesperson for the Colorado Attorney General’s office declined to comment Friday.

A number of Colorado districts have policies that allow transgender students to join sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Others make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Some, including the districts and schools that sued, recently passed policies barring transgender students from playing on teams that match their gender identity.

In their lawsuit, the districts argued that the state’s antidiscrimination law, which includes protections for transgender people, put the districts in an “untenable position” because they risked state penalties over their transgender athlete policies.

In her recommendation, Dominguez Braswell said settled legal principles prohibit the districts from bringing claims against the state based on the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. She also took issue with the plaintiffs’ claim to represent the interests of all district students.

The plaintiffs brought two of their claims on behalf of all students, she noted, “but their interests do not align with all students.”

She said the districts’ policies barring transgender students from certain sports teams “cut against the interests of transgender students” and “may also cut against the interests of students who seek inclusivity in school-sponsored activities.”

In addition to the 26,000-student District 49, the plaintiffs include Colorado Springs 11, Academy 20, Montezuma-Cortez, James Irwin Charter Schools, Monument Academy, The Classical Academy, and Education reEnvisioned Board of Cooperative Education Services.

The defendants in the case were Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, the Colorado Civil Rights Division, and the Colorado High School Activities Association.

When the districts settled with the Colorado High School Activities Association in early December, the association agreed not to sanction plaintiff schools or teams over their transgender athlete policies. The settlement also required the plaintiffs to pay the activities association $60,000.

The association’s bylaws for years of transgender athletes to participate on sports teams that match their gender identity and stated that the group can review district decisions on such matters.

But the group had never penalized a school or district for policies on transgender athletes or dictated what those policies should say, an association spokesperson said in December.

This story was , a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at

Since legislators in the majority just can’t seem to understand the First Amendment, they got schooled by the courts on multiple occasions.

Constitution 101: the First Amendment forbids government agencies, federal, state or local, from enacting a law or regulation “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”

The government cannot quash or coerce speech, establish religion or prevent its exercise. If state legislators and regulators learn these principles, taxpayers will not have to foot the bill for yet another needless trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lesson one: Agencies cannot abridge free speech by forcing people to parrot the government¶¶Òőap ideological message. That¶¶Òőap called coerced speech. A week ago, a Biden-appointed federal judge that requires cigarette pack-style health warnings on gas stoves and imposes a fine of up to $20,000 per violation if they don’t.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, that the law likely infringes on their First Amendment freedoms. “The court disagrees that the labeling requirement merely enables customers to access information — the only reason customers can access this information is because the State compels peddlers of gas stoves to speak it,” the court ruled. “Further 
 whether the information is truthful and accurate is subject to substantial disagreement within the scientific community.”

In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Weiser decision, legislators will want to read the Supreme Court¶¶Òőap 2023 decision in the Colorado case and the cases it cites as homework.

Lesson two: The government cannot abridge free speech by censoring it. Earlier this year, Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, defended her First Amendment rights to the Supreme Court. A 2019 law prohibits counselors from helping clients come to terms with their biological sex through talk therapy. The law threatens counselors with thousands of dollars in fines and a potential loss of license unless they stick to government-approved speech. Based on the justices’ questions during oral argument, the Colorado law is likely to be struck down.

In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Chiles v. Salazar case, legislators will want to read Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc. and the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates. v. Becerra decisions as homework.

Lesson three: The government cannot establish religion, or prohibit its exercise. Laws must be neutral toward religion neither advancing nor hindering its practice, and the government cannot discriminate against people for their beliefs. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court received 19 friend-of-the-court briefs from 22 states, numerous representatives from policy and law think tanks and various faith traditions, and Colorado families urging the Supreme Court to hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a suit brought by the Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes, and two parents of preschool-age children. Colorado has been excluding Catholic preschool providers from its “universal” state preschool program for upholding church doctrines. Catholic families seeking a preschool education that aligns with their faith must pay out of pocket while other families get 15 hours of preschool education for free.Ìę That¶¶Òőap not fair or consistent with the First Amendment.

The state should have learned this lesson earlier this year when it settled a lawsuit brought by Camp IdRaHaJe, a Christian summer camp. The camp can continue to operate its summer programming without compromising its policies regarding biological sex. The state agreed to update its guidelines and website to clarify that “churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes” are exempt from state dictates that force licensed resident camps to permit campers to use dorms and restrooms of the opposite sex.

In addition to familiarizing themselves with Camp IdRaHaJe Association v. Roy, legislators will want to read the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision as homework.

While it¶¶Òőap a heavy reading list, once completed, legislators and regulators can be confident that they will start the new year equipped to establish laws and regulations that are actually consistent with First Amendment rights.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Some of those districts and schools passed policies this year barring transgender students from joining teams that align with their gender identities.

The agreement marks the end of the Colorado High School Activities Association’s involvement in a federal lawsuit spearheaded last spring by the 27,000-student District 49 near Colorado Springs. The lawsuit will continue with other defendants, including Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and officials from the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

The settlement won’t have much effect on high school sports in Colorado because CHSAA has never had a major role in determining which school teams transgender athletes can join. The group’s bylaws have for years of transgender athletes to participate on sports teams that match their gender identity and state that the group can review district decisions on such matters.

But the group has never penalized a school or district for policies on transgender athletes or dictated what those policies should say, a CHSAA spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

“Eligibility decisions have always been left to individual schools and districts, which is why being named in this lawsuit was both frustrating and unnecessary,” she said.

The statement called the plaintiffs’ decision to sue CHSAA “much more performative than substantive,” and said it won’t change anything about the group’s policies, practices, or authority.

The outcome of the ongoing lawsuit between the state and the eight plaintiffs remains to be seen. The state’s anti-discrimination law includes protections based on gender identity.

A number of Colorado districts have policies that allow transgender students to join sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Others make decisions on a case-by-case basis, and more recently, some bar transgender students from playing on teams that match their gender identity.

In addition to CHSAA’s agreement not to sanction the plaintiff districts and schools for policies on transgender athletes, the settlement states that CHSAA won’t penalize the plaintiffs for making public statements about the “advantages of biological males over biological females in competitive sports” or the risk of “allowing biological males to play contact sports with or against biological females.” The agreement says this provision won’t apply to statements that advocate violence or demean people based on gender identity.

The settlement also states that if an athlete or team forfeits a competition against a transgender athlete or a team with a transgender member, there will be no penalty, but the forfeit will be counted as a loss.

Finally, the settlement stipulates that the plaintiffs will pay CHSAA $60,000 to cover legal fees and operational costs.

In a news release, District 49 Superintendent Peter Hilts said, “​This settlement is a major step forward, but our work isn’t done. We will continue litigation against the Colorado Civil Rights [Division] and the Attorney General’s Office to ensure every district in Colorado has the freedom to protect girls’ sports, safeguard student privacy, and uphold the spirit of Title IX.”

Multiple Republican lawmakers cheered the settlement on social media Thursday.

Rep. Jeff Hurd, who represents western and southern Colorado in Congress, said on X, “At its core, this settlement is about fairness, safety, and common sense. Schools have a responsibility to protect young women and maintain a level playing field by upholding basic biological standards. As a father of daughters, I know how important that is.”

District 49 , the day after its conservative-learning board narrowly passed a controversial policy banning transgender middle and high school students from joining school teams that align with their gender identity. The policy was developed after President Trump’s February executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from any school that allows athletes assigned male at birth to participate in girls’ or women’s sports.

In addition to District 49, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Colorado Springs 11, Academy 20, Montezuma-Cortez, James Irwin Charter Schools, Monument Academy, The Classical Academy, and Education reEnvisioned Board of Cooperative Education Services.

This story was , a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at .

LeEllen Condry filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver after obtaining the right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

The lawsuit, brought by attorneys Andy McNulty and Mari Newman, alleges the discriminated and retaliated against Condry and violated her First Amendment rights after she labeled as racist the removal of books from district library shelves.

“Knowledge is power, but the Elizabeth School District is so hell-bent on depriving its students access to information that it not only banned books expressing marginalized viewpoints, it fired LeEllen Condry for demanding better,” Newman said in a news release.

Dan Snowberger, the Elizabeth School District’s superintendent, told The Denver Post that the district is aware that a former employee is alleging discrimination.

“The employee’s claims are not new and are part of a broader effort by the ACLU to attack the district because of a few decisions a vocal minority disagrees with,” Snowberger wrote in a statement. “The district has and will continue to defend itself in federal court from outside interests attempting to strong-arm the district¶¶Òőap elected board — a board that was overly retained by the voters a few short weeks ago. The district intends to defend itself in court, and the facts will show that the individual’s employment ended because she failed to take the steps to secure the necessary licensure for the position, and because the position was one of several eliminated for cost-saving reasons during a fiscal exigency.”

Condry was hired as the dean of students at Elizabeth Middle School in June 2024. That August, she learned about a new district policy that restricted access to 19 library books the school board deemed “highly sensitive” — largely books written by or about people of color and LGBTQ people.

Some of the removed books — which are now back on shelves because of a court order — included “Beloved” and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini and “#Pride: Championing LGBTQ Rights” by Rebecca Felix.

“The book ban was inherently discriminatory, and it was the ESD board’s goal in implementing the ban to suppress voices by Black and LGBTQIA+ authors and content that discussed race-related and LGBTQIA+ topics, characters and experiences,” the lawsuit states.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado sued the Elizabeth School District over the book policy in December.

When the school board requested feedback on the policy, Condry said she wrote a letter explaining how the book ban was “unethical” and “racist.” According to the lawsuit, Condry’s response was “passionate” but “professional.”

After Snowberger read Condry’s feedback, the lawsuit said he sent an email to all employees calling out Condry’s input as crossing the line and demanding “further disciplinary action.”

In October of 2024, the lawsuit said Condry was fired and told that her removal was budget-related.

“It was clear to Ms. Condry, however, that she was being terminated because she was a Black woman who dared to speak up and call the board racist for their decision to implement the book ban and for continually raising concerns about racism within ESD,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleged Condry was replaced by a white woman who supported the removal of the books from library shelves.

“It is time to end corruption, racism and discrimination in the Elizabeth School District,” Condry wrote in a news release. “It is now my time to take back my voice that was once silenced, and to speak up against the dishonest leadership that uses its power to erase the voices of diverse groups of people.”

A Colorado case going before the this week could set nationwide precedent for whether states can bar licensed medical professionals from performing the widely discredited practice of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ kids.

On Tuesday, the conservative-majority court will hear oral arguments in , a case brought by Colorado Springs counselor Kaley Chiles, who alleges the state’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates her First Amendment rights.

The will argue that trying to change a young patient¶¶Òőap sexual orientation or gender identity is substandard medical care, and that greenlighting such care under the umbrella of free speech would “open Pandora’s box” to a litany of licensed professional malpractice.

Nearly half of U.S. states have prohibited the practice of conversion therapy on minors.

But the , an Arizona-based conservative legal organization that is representing Chiles, contends Colorado’s is an attack on licensed medical therapists’ free speech and religious freedoms.

Should the Supreme Court rule in Chiles’ favor, constitutional law expert said not only would the nation’s queer youth be vulnerable to harmful psychological practices, but licensed professionals of all kinds could use the First Amendment as a shield for malpractice, too.

“There are legal malpractice laws that hold lawyers accountable when they give clearly erroneous legal advice,” said Skinner-Thompson, a law professor at the . “There’s medical malpractice when doctors give negligent medical advice. All those things involve communication, and it’s never been controversial or a violation of the First Amendment to regulate that. But that’s exactly what Chiles is asking the Supreme Court to conclude here.”

, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said Chiles’ argument is laser-focused on free speech. He argued that she experienced “viewpoint discrimination” by being forbidden from counseling conversations aimed at helping a client feel “more consistent with their biological sex.”

“These are conversations that clients want and need,” Warner said.

Practice denounced by health groups

Health organizations around the world — including the , the and the — have denounced the practice of conversion therapy and spoken of the harms of trying to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including increased risks of depression, sexual problems, low self-esteem and suicide.

Alex Floyd, health equity director at LGBTQ advocacy organization , said anyone struggling to understand the impacts of conversion therapy should listen to the stories of those who have endured it.

“I worked with many people who have been through conversion therapy, and the damages of that are lifelong and deeply sit in someone’s soul and psyche,” Floyd said. “I hope folks can understand that and listen to folks that have been harmed. We all deserve therapy where we feel safe and heard and get a chance to heal and grow. We shouldn’t have to go to therapy because of our therapy.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser argues that conversion therapy practices are so discredited that they fall under the banner of substandard medical care. To argue that a doctor has the right to provide substandard medical care under the First Amendment would set a dangerous precedent, he said.

For example, if a doctor recommended a child with leukemia skip chemotherapy and instead take Vitamin C, that advice would be substandard care, Weiser said. Shielding poor medical advice under First Amendment protections could mean ill-informed care for anyone, he said.

“We’re about protecting patients,” Weiser said. “Therapists can’t just do things that lack medical basis.”

Warner countered that bans on conversion therapy are what’s harming the nation’s youth.Ìę “Colorado hasn’t identified any study that proves these conversations cause harm,” he said.

In a video , Chiles said Colorado’s conversion therapy ban censors her speech in a way that interferes with her ability to do her job.

“When I am actively having my speech chilled, then I can’t be transparent and honest and genuine with my client, and that’s a real disservice to them,” Chiles said in the video.

Colorado in front of the high court

Colorado has played a notable role in Supreme Court litigation over LGBTQ rights, CU’s Skinner-Thompson said.

In 1996, the court ruled in Romer v. Evans that Colorado’s voter-approved Amendment 2 — which barred municipalities from establishing anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people — was unconstitutional. The noted that passage of the amendment, which earned Colorado the nickname, was born out of a “desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled on a case in which a Lakewood baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, citing his religious objections. The ruling, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, reversed the state’s findings that the baker had discriminated against the couple, instead finding that Colorado was hostile toward him because of his religious beliefs.

And in 2023, the high court ruled that the First Amendment allowed a Colorado graphic designer to refuse to make wedding websites for LGBTQ couples.

“Now, Colorado has elected representatives who have taken a different tack and tried to protect LGBTQ people, and, as a result, Colorado’s laws are being targeted by groups trying to use the First Amendment to create exceptions for and carve-outs against LGBTQ nondiscrimination,” Skinner-Thompson said. “It’s part of a pattern of using the First Amendment to deregulate government more generally speaking, but strike down protections for LGBTQ people, specifically.”

Warner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, said Colorado is the state the organization has seen the most “coercion” from in recent flare-ups between free speech and LGBTQ rights.

“Colorado officials have consistently interpreted laws to censor speech,” Warner said. “Over the past 15 years, Colorado has been a big battleground for First Amendment issues… Kids and families should get to decide the goals they pursue in counseling, and Colorado, by passing this (conversion therapy) law, is taking away options that families and kids want and need, and that¶¶Òőap not good for anyone.”

Weiser noted that Colorado law does not prevent health care professionals from sharing information, content or viewpoints with patients, and that therapists can tell patients about conversion therapy and the religious ministers who can engage in those practices. The law also doesn’t mandate counselors affirm any orientation or identity, Weiser said.

Colorado has not taken disciplinary action against Chiles or any licensed professional for engaging in conversion therapy since the law was enacted, Weiser said.

A federal district court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld Colorado’s law.

“As we are defending this law, we know we’re making sure we’re doing all we can to protect everyone and make sure the LGBTQ community knows you matter and we care about you and we’re not going to let you be harmed,” Weiser said.

Mary Dulacki, the department’s chief compliance officer, was fired June 5 after city officials said she was dishonest during an investigation into workplace misconduct that allegedly ranged from gossiping to mismanaging subordinates to speaking with a TV news reporter.

Dulacki, who has been a city employee for 17 years, has claimed the firing was retaliation after she filed a with the a year ago, according to a city letter of discipline.

Executive Director of Public Safety Armando Saldate denied in the nine-page letter that he fired Dulacki in retaliation.

“To the contrary, we received a complaint from one of the employees you directly supervised at the time alleging various perceived inappropriate actions on your part that we were obligated to investigate,” he wrote. “We hired a neutral outside investigator to investigate the allegations and make factual findings that we have relied upon in deciding to initiate the disciplinary process and to impose discipline.”

Dulacki and her attorney did not return requests for comment this week.

The misconduct investigation found that Dulacki spoke with after a Denver police officer was run over by a city fire truck during the Nuggets’ NBA championship celebration parade in June 2023. Maass obtained a copy of a draft after-action report about the incident and .

Maass filed an open records request for the report in February 2024, but a city records custodian told him it didn’t exist, which Saldate said “was appropriate in that only a draft report existed that had never been approved.”

Dulacki then told the records custodian that the custodian should assume Maass already had a copy of the report, according to the letter.

“You disclosed that you were having conversations with Mr. Maass on the side and advised her to assume Mr. Maass already had a copy of the draft after-action report. You then asked not to tell anyone that you were speaking with Mr. Maass on the side,” the disciplinary letter states.

When asked about the conversations during the subsequent misconduct investigation, Dulacki said she didn’t recall talking with the reporter or asking the custodian not to tell anyone about the conversations, the disciplinary letter states. Saldate found her statements were not credible.

Dulacki was also investigated over concerns that she mismanaged her subordinates, including by unfairly distributing work, failing to advocate for an employee’s advancement and failing to communicate with that employee clearly. Additionally, the letter states that Dulacki gossiped about a subordinate having an affair.

She denied gossiping during the misconduct investigation, which Saldate again considered to be dishonest.

He noted that Dulacki was in charge of making final disciplinary decisions for Denver police officers and firefighters, and that those first responders can be fired for dishonesty.

“It would be irresponsible for me to retain you in your role when it is your responsibility to decide whether to dismiss officers who are deceptive in their internal affairs interviews, and when your credibility is critical to your ability to testify effectively in all disciplinary appeal hearings,” Saldate wrote. “In addition, I can no longer employ someone at your level whose honesty and judgment I no longer to (sic) trust.”

It was not immediately clear Friday whether or how Dulacki’s gender-discrimination complaint was resolved. Katie O’Donnell, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Civil Rights Division, said she could not comment on the status, outcome or existence of complaints filed with the division.

In a May 12 letter, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division requested a broad swath of voter and election data from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office — a request that potentially covered everything from surveillance footage and custody logs to completed paper ballots from previous elections. The civil rights division’s head, Harmeet Dhillon, wrote that the agency had received a complaint that Colorado wasn’t complying with a federal election statute that includes record retention.

The request — and the records it sought — is unprecedented, said Matt Crane, the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association. The federal request was .

“It¶¶Òőap really, really expansive,” Crane said. “I’ve never seen anything like this before, nor has anybody else that I know in this field.”

Secretary of State Jena Griswold said her office turned over some records to the agency, including two recent voter lists and a third document that included which Coloradans voted. Those are all public records that could be provided to anyone who asked, Griswold said Tuesday.

Griswold said her office either didn’t have access to other records that were requested, which are kept by individual counties, or her office didn’t believe the Justice Department had a legal basis for seeking them.

Crane and Griswold both said they thought the request was intended to help Peters, who was convicted last year of using someone else’s security badge in spring 2021 to give access to Mesa County’s elections system to a third party with ties to another prominent election denier, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Griswold said the federal laws cited in the Justice Department’s letter were the same used by Peters’ defense to claim that she was only seeking to preserve election records, and Crane said he worried that the request would expand what would be considered an election record to back up Peters. The letter also came a week after President Donald Trump referred to Peters on social media as a “political prisoner” and called for her release.

Shortly after Trump returned to office in January, the Justice Department had also previously filed a “statement of interest” in Peters’ case, a sign of the agency’s interest in her conviction.

The Justice Department did not return an email Monday seeking comment.

On March 25, Griswold’s office received a separate letter from the law firm that Dhillon, the Justice Department official, had founded. The letter, sent on behalf of the Republican National Committee, also sought a broad selection of election records.

The expansive request from the Justice Department had several problems, Griswold said. For one, it erroneously referred to Colorado as a “commonwealth,” and it requested data dating back to November 2000. That was a typo, Griswold and Crane said, and was supposed to refer to the 2020 election that Trump has falsely claimed he won. The two officials took that as another tip-off that the request was intended to affect Peters.

Griswold said her office hasn’t heard from the Justice Department since it sent some records last month. Crane said that, to his knowledge, no county has received a similar letter from the agency seeking the records that Griswold’s office says it doesn’t have. Griswold has also not received any information about the complaint that formed the basis of the letter.

“We don’t even know what it means,” she said. “As far as we know, it¶¶Òőap Donald Trump’s complaining on social media.”

Apparently, the lesson was lost on Colorado politicians and bureaucrats who are determined to force people of faith to choose between exercising their religion and serving their clients in the Colorado marketplace.

In February of this year, the Colorado Department of Early Childhood adopted new regulations forcing summer camps to allow biological boys to dress, shower, and room with girls and vice versa, if the camper identifies as a different sex. Camp IdRaHaJe, a 77-year-old camp in Bailey, named after the old song, “I’d Rather Have Jesus,” separates campers by biological sex for bathing, dressing, and sleeping and therefore cannot obey the new rule. After the camp’s administrators asked for an exemption and were denied, they filed suit.

IdRaHaJe is likely to prevail on First Amendment grounds. The government cannot impose its ideological preference about gender without violating the free exercise of religion of those whose creed deems biological sex a meaningful distinction.

The state is also discriminating against Colorado families. There are dozens of day and overnight camps of which only a small minority are faith-based.

Families who believe that gender identity is separate from biological sex and are seeking a camp that will affirm their child’s alternate identity, and families who do not mind if their children share bathrooms and cabins or tents with children of the opposite sex have many options.

Those who consider biological sex an important distinction for maintaining privacy, safety, and religious conviction deserve the same freedom to choose a camp. Rather than waste another dime of taxpayer money defending discrimination against faith-based providers, the state should change its regulations to comply with the First Amendment.

Likewise, politicians need to review the above-mentioned Supreme Court decisions. In 2019, the General Assembly passed a bill censoring the speech of counselors who discuss gender identity. As with the new camp regulations, the law privileges the state’s ideology through coercion. These lawmakers believe that gender is separate from biological sex and is changeable. They consider the only correct response to a child’s discomfort with his or her biological sex is to affirm a desire to change gender. Any attempt by a counselor to help a client under the age of 18 accept his or her biological sex could result in the suspension or revocation of the counselor’s license.

Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case brought by Kaley Chiles, a Colorado licensed professional counselor whose freedom of speech and freedom of religion are being violated by this law. Counselors who want to uphold their religious convictions about biological sex are not the only ones impacted by this discriminatory law. Children and teens seeking counseling to help overcome discomfort regarding their biological sex so they can accept their bodies cannot get the help they want and need.

Even the speech of secular counselors is impacted should they deviate from the Colorado government¶¶Òőap preferences in doing what they think is best for their clients. Two recent scientificÌę reviews performed by the British National Health Service and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found little scientific support for the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and surgery for youth with gender confusion.

In fact, such interventions put children and teens at greater risk of cancer, heart problems, metabolic disorders, sterility, and impacted neurocognitive development and psychiatric disorders. ÌęAny counselor who even warns patients or their families about the side effects of such interventions risks punishment from the state.

The Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the First Amendment rights of providers and their clients. In the meantime, however, these discriminatory government edicts will continue to violate Coloradans’ rights of free speech and free exercise of religion, and adversely impact the privacy, safety, professional conduct, and even health of those who disagree with the government¶¶Òőap ideology.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday columnist for The Denver Post.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Two days later, a website appeared that encouraged people to report “violations” of the new law, . The site included an online form and a phone hotline, through which people can push 1 to report churches or similar places and push 2 to report caregivers.

But the website was not created by the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which investigates alleged discrimination. Nor was it launched by any other state agency, or by the advocates who supported HB-1312. Those supporters immediately suspected the website was fake.

They were right: The site was created by Scott Shamblin, the executive director of Colorado Right to Life and opponent of HB-1312 who testified against the bill during its journey through the legislature.

Shamblin’s name is not listed anywhere on the site, and identifying information is redacted from the site’s registration information, according to the nonprofit ICANN. But his name does appear in the metadata for an image on the website’s homepage.

Shamblin confirmed Wednesday that he created the site. He declined to answer additional questions over the phone. In a written statement, he said the website was an “obvious” fake and his attempt to “satirize” the bill’s intent.

“There is significant and intentional disinformation that is being pushed by the proponents of HB-1312 in regards to this satirical website and hotline,” he wrote. “The website was poorly made with little effort, it should be obvious that it’s fake.”

The website, which The Denver Post is not identifying because it is not legitimate, does not provide any indication it’s fake or that the submissions it gathers are going to an opponent of the law it ostensibly seeks to support.

“I’m not even sure what to say about the joke comment,” Katie O’Donnell, spokeswoman for the state agency that oversees the Civil Rights Division, said in an email.

Shamblin also tweeted about the site shortly after it was launched, accusing it of trying to “shut down churches for deadnaming.” To “deadname” is to refer to a trans person by the name they used before they transitioned.

In a text to The Post, he confirmed that he’d posted a tweet about the site — “again satirizing the situation” — before quickly deleting it.

Hailed as a “beacon of hope” for trans people amid the Trump administration’s anti-transgender policies, HB-1312 passed the legislature earlier this month. The law makes it easier for people to change names or gender information on government forms, and it also extends existing anti-discrimination laws to include intentionally misgendering or deadnaming a transgender person in certain settings.

But its passage has sparked conservative and anti-transgender opposition:ÌęSeveral groups have already filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the law, and opponents have taken to social media to repeatedly deadname a transgender Colorado lawmaker — who was not one of the bill’s sponsors — to signal their disapproval.

The bill’s proponents did not take Shamblin’s effort as a joke. Z Williams, whose law firm backed HB-1312 in the legislature, instead accused Shamblin of trying to “catfish” trans people into providing information about themselves.

“I don’t assume innocent intentions. I don’t assume he did this to be funny,” said Williams, who uses they/them pronouns. “I think there could be some real, malicious and dangerous implications behind this kind of website.”

Williams, who identified Shamblin’s name in the website’s metadata, said the site was posted as a serious resource on several Reddit pages after it was launched. Shamblin said the link has been “passed around as if it were serious by other people I am not affiliated with, but that is out of my control and I don’t know who they are.”

Some trans people actually filed reports on the website, Williams said, and they were concerned that information could be released publicly or otherwise misused.

In his statement, Shamblin wrote that most of the responses he’s received have either been from conservatives opposed to HB-1312 or from supporters of the bill insulting him for launching the website. He said he does not intend to reach out to those who submitted anything to the site.

As for the “theoretical” possibility that he would publish any of the responses, he said he would “scrub (users’) information prior to posting.”

O’Donnell, the state spokeswoman, encouraged people with actual discrimination complaints to use the Civil Rights Division’s website — — to lodge them.