Amended Complaint Unemployment 2025

Date: 2025-02-07

Summary

A pro se complaint by Joshua Abrams against the Division of Unemployment Insurance, Joe Barela, Jeff Fitzgerald and John/Jane Doe defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR, filed February 7, 2025 as Document 7-2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment's policies for administering unemployment benefits violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, the First Amendment right to petition and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It states that his 2023 claim excluded wages earned in North Carolina, producing a weekly benefit of $119 rather than $254, and that his appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds. The plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief, and the complaint is dated 02-07-2025.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 31
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1
DENVER, COLORADO
12:38 pm, Feb 07, 2025

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

The United States District Court District of Colorado
901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433
Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams
v.
Defendant(s): Division of Unemployment Insurance,
251 E 12th Ave Denver, CO 80203
[Joe Barela, Jeff Fitzgerald, John/Jane Doe(s) ]
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com |609-968-9360 Case Number:
10722 N Parfet Street Westminster Colorado 80021 1:24-cv-03390-RTG
Division: Courtroom
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Joshua Abrams, a disabled and indigent individual representing himself pro se,

respectfully brings this action under the Ex parte Young doctrine against the Colorado

Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) and its agents for implementing and enforcing

unconstitutional policies and customs in the administration of unemployment benefits.

Defendant’s restrictive procedures, policies, and customs have deprived Plaintiff of his

constitutionally protected property interest. Such deprivation violates his Fourteenth Amendment

right to procedural due process and his First Amendment right to petition for redress.

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant’s systemic barriers, such as inaccessible and unreliable

telephone and online communication channels, have left claimants without any viable means of

securing relief. These barriers forced claimants to make in‑person visits during a public health

crisis, despite the known risks, which directly led to Plaintiff contracting COVID‑19 and

requiring hospitalization.These barriers also violate the accessibility standards mandated by Title
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 31

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires state and local governments to

provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all their programs,

services, and activities. This includes ensuring effective communication and making reasonable

modifications to policies, practices. Defendant was fully aware of these risks and received

federal and state funding to improve electronic access and ensure safe administrative practices;

yet, Defendant failed to implement the necessary modifications. Instead, its policies remained

focused on rigid performance metrics and procedural formalities that obstruct any meaningful

review of erroneous benefit determinations.

The harm to Plaintiff is severe and far-reaching. Having aged out of foster care into

homelessness, his economic survival remains fragile, and wrongful benefit calculations have

only heightened his risk of homelessness, hunger, and medical neglect. Plaintiff’s

disabilities—including high-functioning autism, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, anxiety, and

depression , exacerbate the psychological toll of navigating an adversarial system designed to

misdirect and silence claimants. Beyond his individual case, Plaintiff’s claims highlight a

broader systemic failure that deprives countless others of the unemployment benefits intended as

a critical economic safeguard under federal and state law. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive,

declaratory, and monetary relief to restore his rights, protect similarly situated individuals, and

compel Defendant to reform its fundamentally flawed administrative practices.These practices,

driven by deliberate indifference, have predictably and inevitably led to ongoing constitutional

injuries. Despite clear awareness of the harm their policies inflict, policymakers have failed to

take corrective action, allowing these violations to persist unchecked.

VENUE : Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part

of the events giving rise to these claims occurred in the District of Colorado, where Defendant’s
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 31

principal place of business is located. The administrative actions, communications, and systemic

failures complained of by Plaintiff transpired in this District, making it the appropriate forum for

both the federal constitutional claims and the related state‑law claims under supplemental

jurisdiction. Furthermore, given that these claims implicate both federal statutory and

self‑executing provisions of the Colorado Constitution, their consolidation here promotes judicial

economy and ensures uniform adjudication of the rights of all similarly situated claimants. As an

indigent, disabled litigant without robust legal representation, Plaintiff submits that forcing him

to segregate or refile his state‑law claims into a separate action—as contemplated by May v.

Town of Mountain Village, 132 F.3d 576 (10th Cir. 1996) this would impose an undue and

duplicative burden on the Plaintiff’s limited resources and would further deny timely relief.

Plaintiff acknowledges the Court's discretion in matters of federalism and respects its authority.

However, Plaintiff urges the Court to consider the undue burden of splitting claims between

federal and state courts. Parallel text does not guarantee parallel interpretation, and state

courts—often less equipped to apply constitutional law—may struggle with the complexities of

these claims. As a self-represented litigant without the resources of a law firm, Plaintiff faces

systemic bias, heightened scrutiny, and procedural barriers that would further exhaust his ability

to seek justice. Requiring separate litigation would impose an unnecessary and inequitable

hardship. Plaintiff humbly acknowledges the Court's discretion and will make every effort to

comply if required.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff : Joshua Abrams, is a resident of Colorado. Plaintiff is a disabled and indigent,

self represented party, who has suffered harm as a result of the unconstitutional policies.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 31

2. Defendants : The Defendant(s) below are being sued in their individual or personal

capacities pursuant to the Ex parte Young doctrine, as well as other applicable doctrines,

for their roles in formulating, implementing, and enforcing the policies that have deprived

Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.

A. Executives and Officials : These individuals are the principal decision makers responsible

for establishing and overseeing the administrative policies at issue as the primary defendants.

-Defendant Joe Barela, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado

Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), is responsible for the overall oversight of the

unemployment benefits program, including the policies affecting the appeals process.

-Defendant Jeff Fitzgerald, in his official capacity as Division Director responsible for policy

implementation for unemployment benefits at CDLE, is charged with implementing the policies

that restrict a meaningful appellate review.

B. Supervisors, Managers, and Policy Implementers: These individuals John Doe(s) exercise

supervisory and managerial authority over the day-to-day administration of the appeals process

and are responsible for enforcing the policies that have unlawfully limited claimants’ rights. As

well as any additional executive-level employees who played a role in establishing restrictive

policies. This includes phone representatives whose training prioritized call volume clearance

over claimant assistance, leading to deliberate disconnections, misinformation, and obstruction.

Managers, supervisors, and executives responsible. Individuals overseeing COVID-19 safety

measures and in-person procedures contributed to ongoing violations by failing to provide

reasonable accommodations or remote access. These John and Jane Doe defendants will be

identified through litigation and discovery as necessary beyond the primary policymakers.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 31

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits through the Colorado

Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) after losing his job in Colorado. As a worker

with wages earned in multiple states, Plaintiff was eligible for a Combined Wage Claim (CWC)

under 20 C.F.R. § 616.7, which mandates that wages from all qualifying states be aggregated to

determine benefit eligibility and the correct payment amount. However, when CDLE processed

his claim, it erroneously excluded all wages earned in North Carolina, resulting in a drastically

reduced weekly benefit determination of only $119, as outlined in the Notice of Determination

issued on April 5, 2023.

Recognizing the clear miscalculation, Plaintiff immediately sought correction. On March 27,

2023, he submitted a Wage Correction Letter, providing clear documentation—including W-2s,

pay stubs, and legal citations—proving that his North Carolina wages were visible within

CDLE’s system and should have been counted under federal law. Despite this, CDLE neither

corrected the issue nor conducted a substantive review. Instead, CDLE representatives dismissed

his requests with legally baseless justifications, falsely asserting that the excluded wages were

either unreported by his employer or ineligible due to “double-dipping” restrictions—a gross

misinterpretation of federal unemployment regulations that Plaintiff later disproved through

extensive legal research.

With no resolution, Plaintiff escalated his efforts to engage CDLE, making over 100 calls to its

helpline, only to encounter systemic obstruction, misinformation, and deliberate misdirection.

Calls were frequently disconnected by AI-driven filters or answered in silence before being

abruptly terminated, allowing CDLE to falsely classify the calls as “dropped” or “unresponsive”.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 31

Representatives refused to provide identifying information or record of the conversations,

making any follow-up impossible. On several occasions, agents provided contradictory

explanations, falsely assuring Plaintiff that his issue was “being processed,” only for him to later

discover that no corrective action had ever been initiated. When he demanded clarification, he

was routinely misdirected—told to submit redundant documents, resubmit forms already on file,

or withdraw his claim and reapply rather than simply correct the existing miscalculation.

Frustrated by the failure of the phone system, Plaintiff resorted to faxing critical documentation

in an attempt to force CDLE to acknowledge his claim. Over the course of several months, he

sent multiple fax submissions from public libraries, including on March 10, March 21, March 24,

April 10, April 13, and June 13, 2023. Despite incurring additional costs and enduring significant

health risks by using public facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, his faxes were either

ignored, lost, or dismissed without review. Further compounding the issue, CDLE failed to

provide a standardized, working fax number, instead issuing conflicting instructions and outdated

forms with non-functional return fax numbers, deliberately ensuring that critical documents were

sent to dead ends. This obstructive practice set claimants up for procedural denials, allowing

CDLE to later claim that required paperwork had never been received.

With no ability to resolve the issue through phone, fax, or the online claimant portal—which

lacked any interactive communication options—Plaintiff attempted to resolve the matter in

person. Upon learning that CDLE did not offer in-person appointments, he made multiple

walk-in visits to CDLE offices, only to face yet another series of obstacles. On each occasion,

Plaintiff was forced to wait for hours in overcrowded lobbies with no COVID-19 precautions in

place, use shared telephones in small, enclosed spaces with no sanitation protocols, and interact

with staff who refused to provide assistance. Instead of allowing Plaintiff to meet with a
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 31

decision-maker or review his case, CDLE personnel merely directed him back to the same

defective phone system he had already exhausted.

During one in-person visit on April 2, 2023, a CDLE supervisor printed out an internal wage

determination revealing that Plaintiff’s weekly benefit amount should have been significantly

higher—$254 per week instead of $119—had his North Carolina wages been properly counted.

Despite this clear confirmation that CDLE had miscalculated his benefits, no correction was

made. The refusal to take corrective action, even when confronted with its own internal records

proving the error, is a glaring example of deliberate indifference.

Unable to secure an administrative resolution, Plaintiff filed formal appeals on March 24, 2023,

and April 10, 2023. However, CDLE’s appeal system was deliberately structured to prevent

claimants from challenging miscalculations, backpay denials, or wage exclusions. Instead of

allowing an appeal based on substantive errors, CDLE’s system limited appeal options to

predetermined categories, forcing Plaintiff to select “withdraw application” as his only available

choice—despite never intending to withdraw his claim. Even after explicitly stating in his appeal

submission that he sought to correct the miscalculation, not withdraw his claim, CDLE’s

administrative magistrate refused to review the issue, dismissing the appeal entirely on

procedural grounds. In its May 24, 2023, ruling, the magistrate cited Plaintiff’s failure to submit

the appeal within the 14-day window—a deadline that was practically impossible to meet due to

CDLE’s reliance on delayed mail notifications, which often left claimants with as little as seven

days to appeal. This ruling denied Plaintiff any meaningful opportunity to contest the wrongful

exclusion of his wages, effectively barring him from obtaining a fair review of his benefits

determination.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 31

After exhausting every possible administrative avenue, Plaintiff formally notified the Colorado

Attorney General’s Liability Office on November 3, 2023, documenting CDLE’s pattern of

obstruction, misapplication of federal law, and procedural denial of benefits. The certified

complaint was received on November 9, 2023, yet no remedial action was taken, reinforcing

Defendant’s deliberate indifference to both Plaintiff’s rights and the broader systemic failures

within its unemployment benefits administration.

As a direct result of CDLE’s refusal to correct its own admitted errors, Plaintiff suffered severe

financial, emotional, and physical harm. The failure to provide him with the correct benefit

amount exacerbated his economic instability, putting him at risk of homelessness, hunger, and

medical neglect. The systemic obstruction he faced caused extreme mental distress, anxiety, and

physical exhaustion, requiring him to spend countless hours navigating an administrative maze

designed to frustrate claimants into abandoning their claims. The forced in-person visits, which

were entirely unnecessary had CDLE simply provided a functioning remote resolution system,

exposed him to life-threatening health risks. Plaintiff ultimately contracted COVID-19, suffering

severe complications, loss of consciousness, and hospitalization, further worsening his already

precarious financial and physical condition.

Despite his persistent good-faith efforts, Plaintiff was repeatedly denied his right to due process,

blocked at every turn by arbitrary procedural barriers, misinformation, and deliberate

administrative negligence. His case is not merely an individual grievance but a reflection of

broader systemic failures, where policymakers knowingly maintain a broken system that

deprives claimants of the unemployment benefits they are legally entitled to. The evidence

overwhelmingly demonstrates that CDLE not only failed to administer benefits lawfully but

actively obstructed Plaintiff’s ability to challenge its wrongful determination.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 31

Plaintiff now seeks judicial intervention to correct these constitutional and statutory violations,

restore his rightful benefits, and compel systemic reforms to prevent ongoing harm to other

claimants facing similar injustices.

Institutional Custom, Policies, and Administrative Failures

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s administration of unemployment claims is not the result of

isolated errors but rather a deeply entrenched institutional custom and policy that systematically

deprives claimants of their constitutional and statutory rights. Publicly available documents,

including Defendant’s 2020 Unemployment Performance Plan and emergency orders, establish

that CDLE was fully aware of systemic deficiencies yet deliberately maintained policies and

practices that obstruct claimants' ability to obtain meaningful review.

Rather than addressing these failures, Defendant has prioritized administrative efficiencies and

statistical performance over its fundamental obligations to ensure due process, protect access to

justice, and uphold basic safety and accommodation standards—particularly during the

COVID-19 pandemic. Despite clear knowledge of the risks, Defendant failed to implement

accessible, safe, and effective alternatives for claimants with disabilities, forcing individuals into

unsafe in-person interactions that violated public health protocols. These failures exacerbated

barriers for vulnerable populations, including disabled and indigent claimants who relied on

unemployment benefits as a necessary economic safeguard.

Defendant’s continued refusal to reform these known deficiencies—despite documented

evidence of their harmful consequences—constitutes deliberate indifference and reckless

disregard for claimants’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as violations of

statutory protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state public health and
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
10 of 31

accessibility laws. This systemic misconduct has not only obstructed Plaintiff’s ability to obtain a

fair review but has also subjected him to unreasonable health risks, procedural dead-ends, and

economic deprivation, further compounding the harm caused by Defendant’s unconstitutional

policies.

(1)Defendant’s 2020 Unemployment Performance Plan

Page 7: Acknowledges that the Appeals Branch is limited to procedural review only and does
not commit to addressing substantive errors.Page 12: Admits significant failures in claimant
communication, citing unreliable telephone and online systems. Page 19: Documents known
miscalculations in aggregating out‑of‑state wages (Combined Wage Claims).

(2)Congressional Emergency COVID‑19 Orders (e.g., 116th Congress 2nd Session S 3548):

(3)Emergency Order Effective April 14, 2020 (CRS §§ 8‑72‑102; 24‑4‑103)

Legal Framework Supporting Relief Under Ex Parte Young

Defendant’s policies, practices, and administrative actions exceed the bounds of state

jurisdiction, infringing upon constitutional protections guaranteed under the First, Fourteenth,

and Ninth Amendments. These systemic deficiencies, implemented and enforced by Defendant’s

policymakers, obstruct claimants’ ability to seek redress, challenge miscalculated benefits, and

secure meaningful review. These failures violate the fundamental rights to due process, equal

protection, and access to government processes.

These unconstitutional practices are further exacerbated by Defendant’s disregard for statutory

obligations under Colorado law. Specifically:

● CRS 24-4-104, § 24-4-103, and § 24-4-106 (Colorado Administrative Procedures
Act): These statutes regulate agency rulemaking, public participation, and judicial
review. Defendant’s failure to provide notice or meaningful public input renders its
administrative practices arbitrary and capricious.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
11 of 31

● CRS 8-74-104 (Industrial Claim Appeals Office Review): Grants discretionary
authority over appeals but has been misused to limit appeals to withdrawal-only
remedies, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment.
● CRS 8-74-106 (Appeals – Time Limits – Procedures): Imposes procedural limits that,
when applied to obstruct substantive review, violate due process.
● CRS 8-74-108 (Conclusiveness of Determinations and Decisions): Allows erroneous
benefit determinations to stand unchallenged, denying claimants meaningful hearings.
● CRS 8-72-110 (Reciprocal Interstate Agreements): Governs the inclusion of
out-of-state wages. Defendant’s failure to implement these provisions accurately led to
undercalculation of Plaintiff’s benefits.
● CRS 8-72-102 (Director’s Rulemaking Powers): Grants CDLE authority to regulate
appeals. When used to obstruct claimant rights without notice, it violates procedural and
substantive due process.

These statutory and constitutional violations, collectively, highlight a deliberate policy of

obstruction rather than mere administrative inefficiency. Defendant’s entrenched practices reflect

a pattern of systemic indifference that cannot be excused by isolated errors. Plaintiff has met the

criteria for municipal liability under Monell (1978), by linking Defendant’s administrative

directives, internal reports, and institutional practices to ongoing constitutional deprivations.

These failures are not incidental but are the predictable result of deliberate policy choices.

Furthermore, Ex Parte Young (1908), applies because Plaintiff seeks prospective relief against

ongoing unconstitutional practices. Defendant’s actions continue to obstruct access to due

process and economic stability, creating real and immediate threats of further injury to Plaintiff

and similarly situated claimants. Federal courts retain the authority to intervene where state

policies violate federally protected rights, particularly when such policies cause continuing harm.

Judicial intervention is not only appropriate but necessary to compel compliance with

constitutional and statutory mandates, prevent further violations, and ensure that Defendant

fulfills its duty to administer unemployment benefits fairly, safely, and equitably.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
12 of 31

Plaintiff has compiled numerous records, including application submissions, wage correction

requests, appeals, fax confirmations, and in-person visit documentation, demonstrating his

repeated efforts to address miscalculated benefits. These documents are preserved and ready to

be presented in support of Plaintiff’s claims during discovery, disclosure, and relevant motions.

COUNT I Violation of the 1st Amendment Right to Petition (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Defendant’s conduct directly interfered with Plaintiff’s right to petition the government for

redress by creating insurmountable barriers to a fair review of his claim. Borough of Duryea v.

Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011), establishes that citizens cannot be arbitrarily blocked from

accessing mechanisms designed for grievance resolution. Defendant’s actions, including

AI-driven call filtering that prematurely disconnected calls, refusal to document or acknowledge

prior communications, and reliance on a non-functional claimant portal, effectively foreclosed

any meaningful ability to seek redress. The system was designed to exhaust claimants into

abandoning their claims rather than providing a legitimate pathway for resolution. Officials who

maintained and enforced these practices knew or should have known that they created

unconstitutional barriers to the exercise of a fundamental First Amendment right, stripping them

of any immunity defense.

The First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the

right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This core

constitutional protection is essential not only for challenging overt governmental policies but

also for ensuring that individuals may submit communications and appeals on any matter

affecting their protected property interests—including the accurate calculation of unemployment

benefits. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). A robust, unfettered right to petition
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
13 of 31

requires that claimants be afforded a full, meaningful opportunity to challenge adverse

administrative determinations on any relevant issue.

Defendant’s administrative framework severely restricts this fundamental right by

confining appeals to a limited, predetermined set of outcomes. Rather than permitting a

comprehensive review of every issue that affects a claimant’s rights and property—in particular,

the miscalculation of benefits due to the arbitrary exclusion of out‑of‑state wages—Defendant’s

process permits only one narrow remedy: the withdrawal of one’s claim. This contrived

mechanism does not allow claimants to present the full scope of factual evidence or to contest

the underlying errors, thereby effectively neutralizing their constitutional right to petition for

redress.

In addition to funneling claimants into deficient appeals and communications method,

Defendant’s practices further impede effective petitioning by creating pervasive communication

barriers:

● Repeated Call Center Failures: Plaintiff’s documented call logs show that Defendant’s

telephone operators systematically disconnected calls, often abruptly and without

adequate explanation, thereby denying claimants any opportunity to engage meaningfully

with the appeals process.

● Unreasonable Burdens on Alternative Methods: Claimants have been forced to submit

supporting documents via fax or mail at significant personal expense—costs that are

disproportionate for indigent individuals and that further limit their ability to petition.

These alternative channels are unreliable, as evidenced by repeated failures to receive

confirmation or any verifiable record of submissions.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
14 of 31

● Lack of Accessible Digital Communication: Defendant has not provided a functional

online platform or other electronic means that would allow claimants to submit queries or

dispute erroneous benefit determinations in a timely manner. This failure is particularly

harmful to disabled individuals, who depend on clear, accessible communication

channels to effectively exercise their rights.

These communication obstacles, which are corroborated by internal performance reports and

publicly available administrative documents (see Exhibit references), constitute an additional,

deliberate barrier to the right to petition. They demonstrate that Defendant’s practices are not

merely a matter of administrative inefficiency, but rather a systematic strategy to obstruct

claimants from seeking a full and fair review of adverse benefit determinations.

Defendant’s reliance on statutory provisions—such as CRS §§ 8‑74‑106, 8‑74‑104,

8‑74‑108, and 8‑74‑107—to justify this narrow, predetermined appeal process fails to satisfy

constitutional standards. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Court held that

governmental policies that effectively suppress petitioning rights must be subject to heightened

scrutiny. Here, Defendant’s practices limit claimants to a withdrawal option that effectively

precludes any meaningful challenge to the underlying errors in benefits calculation. Such a

practice not only contravenes the First Amendment but also undermines the procedural due

process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, as a full and open review is necessary to

protect a claimant’s property interest in unemployment benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254

(1970)). Plaintiff was funneled into a procedural dead-end, denied reasonable avenues for appeal,

and subjected to deliberate misdirection and obstruction, which violated his right to petition

government agencies effectively.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
15 of 31

COUNT II Violation of the 14th Amendment Right to Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Defendant’s policies and procedures deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to due process

by systematically obstructing any meaningful opportunity to challenge the miscalculation of his

benefits. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976),

establish that when a state grants a property interest, such as unemployment benefits, it must

provide fair procedures before depriving a claimant of those benefits. Defendant’s process

funneled claimants into procedural dead ends, limited appeal options to withdrawal rather than

substantive correction, and failed to provide a system for reviewing miscalculations, all of which

directly violate these precedents. The absence of a functioning review mechanism, combined

with the lack of reasonable access to a decision-maker, left Plaintiff entirely without recourse.

Officials knew or should have known that systematically blocking substantive challenges to

benefit determinations constituted an unconstitutional deprivation of property, making them

ineligible for qualified immunity.

Unemployment benefits, once lawfully determined, constitute a protected property

interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as established in Goldberg

v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits—calculated by aggregating all

qualifying wages under the Combined Wage Claim (“CWC”) system—is a legitimate

expectation that is grounded in both federal and state law. In this instance, Defendant arbitrarily

excluded Plaintiff’s North Carolina wages from his benefits calculation, thereby reducing his

weekly benefit to an amount grossly insufficient to meet basic subsistence needs. This

miscalculation, which effectively denies Plaintiff the full measure of benefits to which he is

lawfully entitled, represents a clear deprivation of his protected property interest. The deprivation

is especially egregious given that Plaintiff’s out‑of‑state wages were clearly recorded and readily
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
16 of 31

verifiable in his claimant profile, yet were wrongfully disregarded by Defendant’s administrative

process.

Defendant’s administrative framework, by design, limits claimants to a singular, narrow

remedy—namely, the forced withdrawal of their claims—thus preventing any substantive review

of an erroneous benefits determination. Despite Plaintiff’s diligent submission of multiple wage

correction forms and repeated efforts to secure a meaningful administrative hearing via

telephone, online portals, fax communications, and in‑person visits, Defendant’s process

confined his recourse solely to the option of withdrawing his claim. Such an approach is

fundamentally at odds with the procedural due process requirement that a claimant be provided

with an effective mechanism to contest and correct an adverse determination. As elucidated in

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the state must not only provide notice of an error but

must also afford a meaningful opportunity for the affected party to be heard prior to depriving

him of a protected interest. Defendant’s refusal to allow a substantive review of Plaintiff’s wage

data thereby deprives him of the opportunity to present evidence in support of his full wage

history and to secure a just recalculation of his benefits.

The rigid procedural remedy imposed by Defendant is undergirded by statutory

provisions, including CRS §§ 8‑74‑106, 8‑74‑104, 8‑74‑108, and 8‑74‑107, which collectively

transform the appeals process into a mechanism that serves merely as an administrative

formality. Rather than allowing claimants to challenge and correct errors in a robust, fact‐finding

forum, Defendant’s system restricts review to a predetermined and limited inquiry as to whether

a claim should be withdrawn. This limitation is arbitrary and capricious and results in a de facto

bar to any substantive challenge. Defendant’s administrative process, as applied in this case,

prevents Plaintiff from presenting the full array of evidence that would establish that his full

wage history was not properly considered. Consequently, Plaintiff is left without a genuine
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
17 of 31

opportunity to correct the underlying error, leading to severe economic harm and emotional

distress.

Plaintiff was systematically obstructed from meaningful review, making the appeals process a

sham. Under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319

(1976), when essential economic benefits are denied without a fair process, it constitutes a due

process violation. CDLE’s "withdrawal-only" and obstructive process effectively denied Plaintiff

any substantive review, making it unconstitutional.

COUNT III Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134)

Defendant’s refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled claimants

violated Title II of the ADA, which requires public entities to ensure equal access to government

services. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), affirms that Title II mandates that individuals

with disabilities receive meaningful access to public services and that failure to accommodate

them constitutes unlawful discrimination. Here, Defendant’s failure to implement an accessible,

reliable remote communication system, combined with its refusal to accommodate Plaintiff’s

disability by forcing him into unsafe in-person visits, directly contravenes ADA requirements.

Defendant had the funding and capacity to implement remote accessibility options but willfully

refused to do so, despite clear regulatory mandates. Because the ADA’s requirements are

well-established, officials’ deliberate failure to accommodate Plaintiff removes any plausible

claim to qualified immunity.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), public entities are required to ensure that

qualified individuals with disabilities have full and equal access to the services, programs, and

activities they provide. As a person with autism and related mental health conditions, Plaintiff is
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
18 of 31

entitled to effective communication and reasonable modifications that enable him to participate

fully in the unemployment benefits process. The ADA specifically title 2 mandates that

government agencies implement accessible methods of communication and adopt reasonable

accommodations to prevent discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134; see also Tennessee

v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). Defendant’s statutory and regulatory obligations require that its

administrative procedures be designed to accommodate the needs of disabled claimants, ensuring

that such individuals are not subjected to undue burdens when accessing critical public services.

Despite these clear obligations, Defendant’s reliance on outdated telephone systems and

AI-driven call filters has severely limited the range of issues that claimants may raise. In

Plaintiff’s case, these systems effectively precluded him from challenging the exclusion of his

out‑of‑state wages—an error that was otherwise clearly documented in his claimant records.

Moreover, the absence of viable remote alternatives forced Plaintiff to pursue in‑person recourse

during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Such in‑person interactions occurred in crowded, poorly

ventilated environments where shared telephones were not properly sanitized, thereby exposing

Plaintiff to an elevated risk of contracting the virus. This failure to implement reasonable

accommodations, despite Defendant’s awareness of these systemic deficiencies—as evidenced

by its own internal performance plans—demonstrates a blatant disregard for the ADA’s mandate

to secure equal access and nondiscriminatory treatment for individuals with disabilities.

As a direct consequence of Defendant’s failure to provide effective accommodations,

Plaintiff contracted COVID‑19 and subsequently suffered severe respiratory complications that

necessitated hospitalization. These physical harms were compounded by significant emotional

distress and economic instability, as Plaintiff was forced to repeatedly navigate an obstructed

administrative process without the benefit of clear, accessible communication. Defendant’s
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
19 of 31

failures in addressing these critical issues not only violates the ADA’s core purpose but also

undermines the statutory right of disabled claimants to participate fully in government programs.

Defendant’s failure to provide accessible and safe alternatives was not merely negligent

but predictable and reckless, given the available federal and state funding allocated for

emergency modernization and accessibility improvements. Internal performance plans and public

health mandates explicitly recognized the need for remote access, enhanced claimant services,

and safe alternatives to in-person visits. By failing to implement these measures—despite both

the financial resources and direct knowledge of the risks—Defendant exhibited deliberate

indifference to the constitutional, statutory, and public health rights of claimants, particularly

those with disabilities.

Plaintiff was entirely excluded from meaningful participation due to CDLE’s unworkable

processes, forcing unsafe in-person visits as the only available means to address critical errors in

his unemployment benefits. ADA violations occur when an agency fails to make reasonable

modifications necessary for equal access, and here, Defendant’s refusal to adapt its processes

directly resulted in the complete exclusion of disabled claimants from safe and effective

participation. This systemic failure was foreseeable and avoidable, as Defendant had both the

financial resources and legal obligation to ensure accessible alternatives but instead chose

efficiency and cost-cutting over fundamental rights. The harm Plaintiff suffered was not

incidental but a direct result of Defendant’s inaction, despite clear evidence of the risks and

obligations imposed by law.

COUNT V – Violation of the 10th Amendment: State Overreach (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
20 of 31

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states, or to the people, those powers not delegated to the

federal government. While state governments have authority over unemployment benefits, this

power must be exercised in accordance with constitutional protections and cannot be used as a

shield for administrative misconduct. Defendant’s misuse of statutory discretion, particularly in

applying CRS §§ 8‑74‑106, 8‑74‑104, 8‑74‑108, and 8‑74‑107, transforms what should be a fair

and remedial administrative process into a tool for arbitrary denials, procedural dead-ends, and

the suppression of claimants' rights.

By failing to implement a transparent and meaningful review system, Defendant has abused state

authority in a way that violates federally protected rights, including due process, the right to

petition, and equal protection under the law. The Tenth Amendment does not grant states the

power to administer programs in a manner that directly contradicts fundamental constitutional

guarantees. Here, Defendant’s actions have effectively stripped claimants of the ability to seek

redress for unlawful benefit denials, forcing them into an unconstitutional procedural trap that

forecloses any substantive resolution. This violation demands judicial intervention to ensure that

state administrative power is exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and

fundamental fairness.

COUNT IV: Violation of Unenumerated Rights (Ninth Amendment)

Plaintiff asserts that the Ninth Amendment guarantees that the enumeration of certain rights in

the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

Plaintiff identifies 5 separate rights that are inherent and essential for dignity, economic security,

and fair access to governmental processes. Among the unenumerated rights Plaintiff believes

were violated are the (1)right to economic stability when entitled under established programs
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
21 of 31

such as unemployment insurance, the (2)right to safe and accessible communication channels

that do not require undue personal sacrifice, and the (3)right to reasonable access to appeals and

grievance processes for redress of government errors. These rights are fundamental to ensuring

individuals can engage with their government without suffering undue hardship, financial

burden, or risk to health and safety.

Plaintiff’s specific grievances highlight a systemic failure to honor these inherent rights.

Defendant forced claimants to rely on antiquated, unreliable methods of communication such as

fax and mail—rather than implementing functional and accessible digital portals. This compelled

claimants to incur out-of-pocket expenses to mail documents, often requiring additional costs for

tracking to prevent documents from being “lost in the mail.” Additionally, Defendant's failure to

modernize its communication systems left Plaintiff and other claimants waiting on hold for

hours, only to face disconnected calls, misleading guidance, or unhelpful representatives.

Forcing claimants to take public transportation, at their own expense, to submit documents or

attempt in-person resolutions during a pandemic posed clear health risks and violated the right to

safe communication processes that should be available in a modern digital age.

Defendant’s administrative framework effectively denied Plaintiff access to meaningful

appeals or processes to address government errors. By imposing restrictive procedural windows,

such as a two-week appeal period, without accounting for delays in mail delivery, holidays, or

busy phone lines, Defendant unfairly limited Plaintiff’s ability to seek redress. These constraints

placed an unreasonable burden on Plaintiff to constantly drop everything and expend significant

effort to ensure compliance with deadlines, rather than focusing on searching for employment or

recovering from the economic instability caused by Defendant’s errors. This systemic obstruction
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
22 of 31

violated Plaintiff’s (4)right to engage with the government in accessible and reasonable ways, a

right necessary to preserve due process and fairness.

Defendant’s actions also violated the inherent (5)right to health and safety during administrative

processes. By failing to provide safe, remote alternatives, Defendant forced Plaintiff into unsafe

in-person visits during a pandemic, exposing him to COVID-19 and causing severe health

consequences. These failures underscore Defendant’s reckless disregard for claimants' well-being

and its refusal to address known risks, even when federal funding and emergency orders

explicitly called for modernization and accommodation. Plaintiff contends that these systemic

failures, which undermine economic security, personal dignity, and procedural fairness, violate

the unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment and demand judicial scrutiny to

ensure these fundamental protections are upheld.

These unenumerated rights are recognized not only by federal jurisprudence but also by

state constitutional principles, such as Colorado Constitution Article II, Sections 3 and 28, which

affirm the inherent and inalienable rights of individuals to seek and obtain safety, happiness, and

equality before the law. Congress and state lawmakers have long underscored the critical purpose

of unemployment benefits as a vital economic lifeline, as explicitly highlighted in Congressional

directives such as S. 3548 (the CARES Act), Colorado Revised Statutes Title 8 (Unemployment

Insurance Act), and related emergency orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defendant’s conduct—specifically, the arbitrary exclusion of Plaintiff’s out-of-state wages from

the Combined Wage Claim calculation and the imposition of an appeal process that permits only

a predetermined, withdrawal-only remedy—strikes at the core of these unenumerated rights. By

restricting claimants to a narrowly defined procedural option, Defendant effectively denies them
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
23 of 31

a meaningful opportunity to challenge erroneous benefit determinations, in direct violation of

federal mandates under 20 C.F.R. § 616.7 and Colorado’s constitutional commitment to due

process and fairness in governance. These failures not only undermine economic stability but

also contradict the legislative intent behind unemployment programs, which aim to secure

financial stability for vulnerable populations and prevent systemic harm to individuals and

communities.

COUNT VI – Negligence

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s negligent mismanagement of the unemployment system directly

caused economic, procedural, and health-related harm, violating state law obligations and

constitutional due process rights. As a state agency tasked with administering unemployment

benefits, Defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to ensure that its systems and processes were

accurate, accessible, and did not expose claimants to foreseeable harm. Defendant breached this

duty through systemic failures, including miscalculating Plaintiff’s benefits, obstructing

meaningful appeals, maintaining ineffective communication systems, and requiring unsafe

in-person attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defendant’s negligence created foreseeable risks that were ignored despite awareness through

internal reports, public health mandates, and federal funding explicitly allocated for

modernization and accessibility improvements. Defendant failed to implement even basic safety

measures—such as sanitized equipment, remote alternatives, and communication channels that

ensured fair access—despite the clear dangers posed by its outdated and obstructive practices.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
24 of 31

These failures forced Plaintiff into hazardous in-person visits, resulting in severe physical harm,

including contracting COVID-19 and suffering lasting complications.

Additionally, Defendant’s failure to accurately aggregate Plaintiff’s wages under the Combined

Wage Claim system caused direct financial harm by reducing his benefits to $119 per week, far

below the amount to which he was entitled. Defendant’s appeals process compounded this harm

by obstructing Plaintiff’s ability to challenge these errors, relying on a withdrawal-only remedy

that effectively denied any substantive review. Defendant’s outdated communication

systems—featuring disconnected calls, obstructive AI-driven systems, and unreliable fax/mail

submissions—further prevented Plaintiff from obtaining relief.

These failures were not isolated errors but part of a longstanding pattern of administrative

dysfunction. Defendant’s reckless disregard for health, safety, and economic stability directly

resulted in Plaintiff’s financial hardship, denial of due process, and severe health consequences.

Defendant’s conduct—including failing to adapt systems to comply with public health and

accessibility standards—demonstrates deliberate indifference, rendering any claim to immunity

inapplicable. Judicial intervention is necessary to ensure compliance with constitutional

protections, compensate Plaintiff for his losses, and prevent further harm to claimants subjected

to the same systemic failures.

COUNT VII Intentional and/or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

In addition to the constitutional violations and statutory failures outlined in the above Counts

including the obstruction of due process, wrongful denial of benefits, and failure to

accommodate Plaintiff’s disabilities. Defendant knowingly maintained a defective administrative

process, forced Plaintiff into unnecessary and harmful in-person visits, and systematically
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
25 of 31

obstructed all avenues of redress despite clear evidence of benefit miscalculations. These actions

were extreme, outrageous, and carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s well-being.

As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe

emotional distress, anxiety, and financial devastation, which were further compounded by his

pre-existing disabilities and economic vulnerability. Defendant’s willful indifference to the harm

caused by its policies warrants liability.

Defendant’s actions reveal a calculated prioritization of its own convenience and internal

metrics over justice,fairness, state or federal rights. By focusing on clearing phone queues and

manipulating performance statistics, rather than resolving legitimate claims, Defendant

knowingly frustrated and disenfranchised claimants contributing and compounding despair, and

deprivation of economic stability enshrined by congress and the constitution. Vulnerable

individuals, including Plaintiff, were subjected to outright lies, false assurances of hope and

restitution, and deceptive tactics designed to pacify them long enough to disconnect or abandon

their claims deliberately and maliciously. This systemic pattern of misleading guidance,

inconsistent responses, and deliberate dead-ends was not merely inefficient; it was a calculated

strategy that humiliated and disenfranchised claimants while undermining their fundamental

rights.

Defendant’s policymakers, executives, supervisors, and employees were fully aware of

the harm their broken systems and deliberate policies were causing, as evidenced by internal

performance plans, emergency health orders, and reliance on flawed AI systems. This was not an

isolated mistake but a systemic failure that disproportionately harmed the disabled and

indigent—those Defendant was obligated to protect. From front-line call center representatives to
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
26 of 31

executive decision-makers, the entire structure knowingly deprived claimants of due process,

denied corrections, and blocked petitions, showing reckless disregard for state and federal rights

and the economic stability of those they served.

The breadth and severity of harm suffered by Plaintiff—including physical, emotional,

financial, and constitutional injuries—demonstrate that this was not just negligence. It was

malice, institutional indifference, and a willful disregard for the law and the humanity of those

Defendant was obligated to protect. Defendant’s entrenched pattern of obstruction and disregard

for human dignity demands accountability for the extensive harm caused.

COUNT VIII Violation of the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action. Defendant is statutorily required to adhere to the

procedural mandates set forth in the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act, including CRS §

24‑4‑106, which authorizes judicial review and reversal of any agency decision that is arbitrary,

capricious, contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. In the instant case, Defendant’s actions in

designing and implementing its unemployment benefits appeals process were not merely

erroneous but demonstrably arbitrary and capricious.

Defendant created an appeal process that effectively foreclosed any opportunity for

claimants to engage in a substantive review of their wage miscalculation claims. Instead of

providing a meaningful mechanism to challenge the wrongful exclusion of Plaintiff’s out‑of‑state

wages, Defendant’s process offered only a procedural remedy—mandating that claimants

withdraw their claims. This rigid limitation is patently arbitrary because it disregards the core

purpose of the appeals process: to ensure that every error affecting a claimant’s protected

property interest is subject to a fair, thorough review. The approach taken by Defendant is in
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
27 of 31

direct violation of CRS § 24‑4‑106, as it deprives claimants of the necessary judicial recourse to

correct agency errors.

Despite its clear legal obligations to accurately administer Combined Wage Claims

(CWC), Defendant has repeatedly failed to follow its own established policies and procedures.

The erroneous exclusion of Plaintiff’s North Carolina wages—despite documented evidence that

such wages were present in the claimant’s profile—demonstrates a significant departure from the

statutory and regulatory framework governing unemployment benefits. By neglecting to

aggregate wages as required under 20 C.F.R. § 616.7 and its own internal guidelines, Defendant’s

decision is not only contrary to law but also constitutes an abuse of discretion. This failure

further supports the finding that Defendant’s administrative actions are arbitrary and capricious.

Relief Requested :

Plaintiff requests the following relief in violations of his constitutional and statutory rights:

Injunctive Relief:

● Immediate release of improperly withheld payments of approximately $6,000 in

back pay plus statutory penalties(if applicable) under CRS §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116,

including up to three times the amount owed due to wrongful denial and delay, along with

all accrued interest.

● Elimination or amendment of restrictive policies that prevent claimants from disputing

wage miscalculations or petitioning for corrections beyond the narrow, pre-selected

appeal options currently available.

● Mandated procedural reforms to protect due process in benefit determinations,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
28 of 31

❖ Updating the claimant portal to allow direct electronic submission of documents,

appeal filings, and communication with caseworkers.

❖ Requiring call center agents to provide their names and a docket or incident

number for every interaction, ensuring that each claimant’s case history is

documented and linked to their portal to prevent unnecessary restarts with each

call.

❖ Overhauling appeal procedures to guarantee claimants can challenge

miscalculations, wage exclusions, and benefit reductions without being funneled

into non-substantive or obstructive options.

❖ Enforcement of ADA compliance across all CDLE communication methods,

ensuring that disabled claimants have equitable access to benefit corrections

through reliable electronic alternatives beyond outdated fax or costly and time

consuming mail-only submissions.

Declaratory Relief:

● Defendant’s administrative practices violate the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide a functional appeals process, improperly

restricting claimants’ ability to challenge benefit miscalculations, and imposing

procedural barriers that deny a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

● Defendant’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations and accessible

communication methods violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA), as it knowingly maintained a system that was inaccessible to individuals with

disabilities and failed to implement reasonable modifications to ensure equal

participation.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
29 of 31

● Defendant’s conduct constitutes an unlawful deprivation of property rights under the

First and Fourteenth Amendments by denying Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals

their entitled unemployment benefits without due process and by obstructing their ability

to petition the government for redress.

● Governmental immunity does not shield Defendant from liability where officials and

or representatives acted with deliberate indifference, willful misconduct, or reckless

disregard for constitutional and statutory rights.

Monetary Relief:

● $150,000 in compensatory damages for economic losses, emotional distress, and physical

harm, including hospitalization from COVID-19 exposure due to Defendant’s unsafe

administrative conditions.

● Punitive damages to deter future misconduct and hold Defendant accountable for

systemic violations.

● Costs, and statutory interest on all wrongfully withheld benefits and damages awarded(if

not applicable under injunctive)

Any other Judgement or Relief so deemed appropriate by the court

In Conclusion

This case is not merely about the deprivation of a few thousand dollars in unemployment

benefits—it is about the profound and far-reaching harm inflicted upon Plaintiff due to

Defendant’s reckless, discriminatory, and obstructive actions. The consequences of these failures

extend beyond financial loss, plunging Plaintiff into humiliation, exhaustion, and abject poverty.

Deprived of economic stability, Plaintiff was left without adequate food, healthcare, or safe
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
30 of 31

housing. Defendant’s AI-driven call systems disconnected claimants, representatives routinely

hung up, and supervisors engaged in deception, sabotage, and false assurances, systematically

obstructing any attempt to seek redress. Plaintiff was forced into unsafe in-person visits where he

contracted COVID-19 due to Defendant’s failure to provide accessible alternatives. At every

turn, the appeals process was structured to prevent meaningful review, ensuring that

miscalculations and wrongful benefit denials remained uncorrected.

While courts may excuse isolated administrative failures, the judiciary has consistently

recognized that when systemic violations accumulate—denying due process, accessibility,

medical safety, economic security, and equal protection—the cumulative effect is undeniable and

legally actionable. Defendant’s misconduct is not a mere bureaucratic lapse but an entrenched

pattern of failure spanning multiple dimensions, including procedural obstruction, ADA

noncompliance, deprivation of due process, reckless disregard for public health and safety,

economic destabilization, and institutional negligence. The weight of these repeated and

compounding failures requires judicial intervention. Plaintiff’s claims are not speculative or

abstract; they are substantiated, repeated, and sustained over time, demonstrating not just harm to

him but an ongoing constitutional crisis affecting all similarly situated claimants.

Beyond financial loss, Plaintiff has been forced into unpaid, exhausting labor simply to

seek the justice he was systematically denied. He has sacrificed hours, days, and nights

researching, drafting, and refining this complaint—work that should never have been necessary

had Defendant exercised even a minimal duty of care. The mental, emotional, and physical toll

of being forced into this fight, compounded by Plaintiff’s disability and lifelong indigency, only

multiplies the cruelty of Defendant’s reckless indifference.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 7-2 filed 02/07/25 USDC Colorado pg
31 of 31

Knowing full well that they controlled the economic stability and livelihoods of

vulnerable claimants, Defendant prioritized its own convenience over justice, clearing phone

queues to manipulate performance metrics rather than resolving legitimate claims. Claimants

were met with outright lies, false assurances of hope and restitution, and deceptive tactics

designed to pacify them long enough to disconnect. The systemic reliance on misleading

guidance, inconsistent responses, and deliberate dead-ends was not mere inefficiency but a

calculated strategy to frustrate, disenfranchise, and humiliate those most in need. This entrenched

pattern of obstruction and disregard for human life and dignity is not just negligence—it is proof

of malice, institutional indifference, and a willful disregard for the law and the people it is meant

to protect. The breadth and severity of harm suffered, physical, emotional, financial, and

constitutional, render the relief sought by the Plaintiff not only justified but modest in

comparison to the egregious violations committed.

________________________________________

Date: 02-07-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff |

Joshua Abrams, Pro Se

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cod.239393.7.2.pdf
Size: 382,213 bytes
SHA-256: 7699d5edc80dbdb22a91eb680f1c6bef2d35f12885dff6424235f1829d1023e5
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cod.239393.7.2.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Amended Complaint Unemployment 2025

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records