Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. v. Scardina.

2024 CO 67. No. 23SC116.

October 8, 2024

Scardina filed a charge of discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division), initiating the administrative review process in the Division. After finding probable cause that Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. discriminated against Scardina, the Division pursued conciliation efforts between the parties. Those efforts failed. Accordingly, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (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. The Commission did not do so. Instead, the Commission 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 Supreme Court held that the plain language of CADA did not, under these circumstances, permit Scardina to do so. This is because 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. Instead, Scardina should have challenged the Commission’s conduct in the court of appeals. For these reasons, the Court vacated the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the case.