Lucas must show he “convey[ed] to the employer his or her concern that the employer has engaged in a practice made unlawful by [Titl facie retaliation claim. C. Tortious Interference Claim. The OADC’s director submitted an affidavit, undisputed by any other evidence, testifying that her decision not to offer Lucas an OADC contract was based primarily on Lucas’s failure to list any references from the Defender’s Office in his application, and that she was never contacted by Thompson or Wilson about Lucas, his qualifications or his application. Based on this undisputed evidence, the magistrate judge ruled that Lucas failed to present any evidence that Thompson and White interfered with his ability to obtain an OADC contract. See Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin, 908 P.2d 493, 500 (Colo. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Lucas asserts the magistrate judge failed to
recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage holding that tortious or deliberate intent to harm a plaintiffs business relationship is not alone sufficient to support an intentional interference claim there must also be proof that the defendants interference was accomplished through improper means holding that under colorado law tjortious interference with a prospective business relation requires a showing of intentional and improper interference preventing formation of a contract holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice