Skip to content

Colorado Court of Appeals Says Employers May Not Deduct Product Fees That Are Costs of Business From an Employee’s Wages

February 24, 2025

The Colorado Court of Appeals held that deducting product fees from an employee’s wages unlawfully shifts the burden of an employer’s business costs and reduces an employee’s wages.

In 303 Beauty v. Division of Labor (Colo. Feb. 20, 2025), employer Hair Salon paid its employee cosmetologist wages and a commission based on her sales of services and retail products. Additionally, the salon and cosmetologist entered into a written agreement authorizing the salon to deduct from the employee’s pay fees for hair care products, such as hair color and dyes, that she used in the course of providing services to the salon’s customers. The court determined that the agreement was improper, finding those expenses were part of the salon’s cost of doing business and could not be shifted to employees.

The court analyzed section 8-4-105(1)(b), C.R.S. 2024 of the Wage Act which intends to protect employees from unlawful wage deductions. C.R.S. 8-4-105(1) states:

“[a]n employer shall not make a deduction from the wages or compensation of an employee except as follows:

. . .

Deductions for loans, advances, goods or services, and equipment or property provided by an employer to an employee pursuant to a written agreement between such employer and employee, so long as it is enforceable and not in violation of the law.”

Because the Wage Act does not define “goods or services,“ the court looked to other exceptions within the section that were defined. The court noted that “loans and advances – directly benefit employees, without an obvious benefit to employers.” In keeping with the statutory construction principle that terms within a list should be interpreted as having a related meaning, the court decided that goods and services should be interpreted as those business costs that benefit an employer.

The court concluded the product fees inherent to an employee’s job that benefit the employer, even if the employee mutually benefits, are costs of business and thereby an unlawful deduction from an employee’s wages, regardless of a lawful written agreement.

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment’s Division of Labor Standards and Statistics’ decision that deducting employer’s costs of doing business from an employee’s pay is unenforceable under section 8-4-105(1)(b).

Key Takeaway

Employers such as hair salons, where product fees may be deducted from an employee’s wage, should review their policies and agreements and consider whether those products are a cost of business and therefore not properly a pay deduction. Note that this decision does not apply to business reimbursements.

Law clerk Lauren Tesler contributed to this article. 

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Legal Updates

Colorado Supreme Court Holds the Economic Loss Rule Does Not Bar Fraudulent Inducement Claims — Keys for Litigators and Drafters

On Jun. 23rd, the Colorado Supreme Court handed down its latest word on the economic loss rule (also called the “economic loss doctrine”), affirming a $215.2 million judgment against a contractor that concealed a known performance problem while negotiating a quarter-billion-dollar design-build agreement.

Explore more
Legal Updates

When Asylum Confidentiality Meets International Police Cooperation

International police cooperation is based on trust that participating states will act in good faith and that shared information will not be misused. US asylum law rests on a different assumption: contact with an asylum seeker’s home government can create danger. When these frameworks intersect, as they do in cases involving alerts issued by INTERPOL, tensions arise that can expose asylum seekers and complicate adjudication, and which remain largely unaddressed in law or policy.

Explore more
Legal Updates

The Changing Legal Landscape of Leasing Fees Coined “Junk Fees”

There is a changing legal landscape across the United States for multi-family property owners and management companies on leasing fees coined “junk fees.” Recently, on March 13th of 2026, the FTC proposed to commence rulemaking to address unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to advertised rent and other fees and charges in the rental housing industry.

Explore more