Denver's long-running Rocky saga is no longer just about one high-flying mascot. The lawsuit brought by the performer behind the Denver Nuggets' iconic character has now expanded into a potential headache for Kroenke Sports' HR department, after a judge allowed part of the case to move forward as a class action. That decision opens the door for roughly two dozen former employees to challenge the company’s severance agreements under Colorado’s 2023 POWR law.
The case started as an individual disability and wrongful-termination fight. It now doubles as a broader test of whether a major local employer used a separation template that allegedly runs afoul of state law. Attorneys for the plaintiff say the ruling could drag a fairly standard-looking HR form into the legal spotlight and turn it into Exhibit A for how the new statute works in real life.
On July 8, Denver District Court Chief Judge Christopher J. Baumann granted partial class certification on the severance-agreement issue under the POWR Act, according to Westword. The order lets a narrow class claim move ahead on nondisclosure and non-disparagement language for a group of similarly situated employees, while leaving the former mascot’s individual disability and retaliation claims in place.
Plaintiffs' attorneys say that slice of the case is tightly focused on whether Kroenke’s standard separation paperwork satisfied the statute’s detailed requirements. In other words, a form that many Denver workers might barely skim before signing could end up dissected line by line in a courtroom as a test of post-2023 employment contracts.
What the complaint says
In a complaint filed August 12, 2025, Drake Solomon, who took over the Rocky role from his father, Kenn, in 2021, alleges that he developed hip problems after COVID and ultimately required surgery, including a total hip replacement in 2024. The filing says he was then fired on August 13, 2024.
According to the complaint, supervisors allegedly told Solomon in meetings that they would hold tryouts for his replacement “regardless of the outcome” of his surgery. The filing states that he was later presented with a severance agreement that included confidentiality, non-disparagement, and liquidated-damages provisions.
The lawsuit argues that these provisions violate C.R.S. § 24-34-407, the Protecting Opportunities and Workers' Rights Act, and asks the court for statutory penalties and other relief. The full filing is publicly available through Scripps.
Former staff expected to join
Local reporting indicates that attorneys expect about 24 current and former Kroenke Sports employees to fall within the class, a number the plaintiffs' team ties to the organization’s apparent reliance on a standard separation template. As quoted in coverage, Virginia Hill Butler of Rathod Mohamedbhai says the firm believes that the same allegedly unlawful language appears in the company’s agreements across the board.
The complaint seeks economic and compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and statutory penalties. It specifically asks for 5,000 dollars per POWR violation for each affected employee. The suit also notes that Kroenke’s lawyers have pushed back in court filings, arguing that the plaintiff “does not have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” according to the reporting.
Why the POWR Act matters
The Protecting Opportunities and Workers' Rights Act (SB23-172), passed in 2023, tightened the rules on what employers can include in severance and settlement agreements. It narrowed acceptable confidentiality language and added notice and attestation requirements that are meant to keep nondisclosure clauses from burying allegations of discriminatory or unlawful conduct.
The law’s text and legislative summary are available on the Colorado General Assembly’s site, and plaintiffs in this case point to particular POWR provisions in asking for statutory penalties. Solomon’s complaint treats each presentation of an allegedly unlawful severance agreement as its own POWR violation and explicitly seeks the statute’s remedies, including the 5,000 dollar statutory penalty per violation and recovery of attorneys' fees.
Court schedule and next steps
The case is active in the Denver District Court as case number 2025CV32883. Online docket listings show a steady run of status conferences and procedural hearings as the parties work through discovery and class-certification issues. Colorado Judicial Branch entries reflect several recent dates the court has set for those status events.
The certified class claim is limited to the POWR-related severance issue, which means notice and class discovery will zero in on whether Kroenke used substantially similar agreements with other employees. Plaintiffs’ counsel have told local media they are preparing discovery aimed at identifying every worker who was presented with comparable agreements and are eyeing a potential trial window in spring 2027.
Legal implications
If the court ultimately finds that Kroenke rolled out unlawful nondisclosure or non-disparagement terms, the ruling could trigger statutory penalties, force revisions to the company’s template agreements, and open the door to individual recoveries for employees who signed the disputed documents.
The POWR Act allows private lawsuits seeking statutory penalties, actual damages, and attorneys' fees for violations. That is why plaintiffs have cast the severance paperwork not as a one-off dispute but as an alleged class-wide practice. Even if Kroenke avoids a blockbuster judgment, the risk of accumulating penalties and fee exposure gives plaintiffs' lawyers more leverage in settlement talks or in seeking injunctive changes to employer forms.
Local context and legacy
The case also lands squarely in Denver’s sports culture. Kenn Solomon, credited in coverage as the originator of the Rocky character decades ago, is part of the backdrop, and the complaint highlights both the family connection and the mascot role’s public visibility. Because Rocky is a long-standing community fixture and the job has been a multi-generational position for the Solomons, local reporting and filings have framed the dispute as more than a standard workplace clash.
For now, the lawsuit moves forward on two tracks: Drake Solomon’s individual discrimination and retaliation claims, and the newly certified class challenge to the severance terms. As discovery grinds on, Denver employers and HR departments will be watching closely to see whether the court’s reading of the POWR Act tightens the screws on confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses for big companies headquartered in Colorado.
