Reply Brief Emergency Injunction Unemployment 2025

Date: 2025-03-25

Summary

Plaintiff's Emergency Injunction Reply Brief filed May 2, 2025 by Joshua Abrams, pro se, as Document 34 in Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR against the Division of Unemployment Insurance and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The reply argues that the defendants' response did not address the plaintiff's March 25, 2025 Brief in Support of Emergency Injunction (Dkt. 16) and that the omission operates as a concession. It argues that no appealable disqualification decision or notice was issued after an integrity hold, citing Mathews v. Eldridge and Goldberg v. Kelly. It also asserts claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1), and describes phone, portal and appeal systems it calls nonfunctional. The brief closes by asking for emergency injunctive relief.

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 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 18

The United States District Court District of Colorado
901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433 FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams DENVER, COLORADO
v. 8:03 am, May 02, 2025

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
Defendant(s): Division of Unemployment Insurance,
JOE BARELA | JEFF FITZGERALD | Etc. ▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com |720-910-4829 Case Number:
1881 E 112th Pl, Northglenn Colorado 80233 1:24-cv-03390-RMR
Division: Courtroom
Plaintiff’s Emergency Injunction Reply Brief

Plaintiff, Joshua Abrams, arguing pro se, disabled, and indigent respectfully submits this Reply

to address critical deficiencies in Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for

Injunctive Relief. Defendants’ Response not only mischaracterizes the nature of Plaintiff’s

claims, but also fundamentally fails to engage with the complete record before the

Court—including Plaintiff’s March 25, 2025 Brief in Support of Emergency Injunction (Dkt. 16)

and its accompanying exhibits documenting systemic, ongoing constitutional violations.

Rather than rebutting the factual showing of widespread deprivations of due process, access to

justice, and Americans with Disabilities Act protections, Defendants narrowly confine their

arguments to Plaintiff’s individual circumstances. They instead present an idealized depiction of

administrative procedures which, as the record conclusively shows, do not function in practice.

Their failure to address the broader constitutional issues raised, combined with their omission of

any engagement with Plaintiff’s supplemental filings, operates as a concession under binding

when failure to respond to argument may constitute waiver or consent.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 18

Defendants’ selective and incomplete response only underscores the urgent need for this Court’s

immediate intervention to preserve the constitutional rights of not just Plaintiff, but thousands of

similarly situated Coloradans and growing, whose access to critical public benefits remains

impermissibly restricted by a broken and unconstitutional administrative structure.

Plaintiff’s March 25, 2025 Brief in Support of Emergency Injunction (Dkt. 16) significantly

expanded upon the original Emergency Motion by presenting unrebutted evidence of systemic

violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth and even numerous amendments; statutory

violations of the Social Security Act § 303 and 42 U.S.C. § 503; and failures under Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Brief documents pervasive harm inflicted upon thousands of Colorado claimants through

public Google Maps reviews, investigative journalism, and formal oversight reports from the

U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (Exhibits A–C). It further reveals

contractor misconduct, ineffective fraud prevention practices, and deliberate administrative

obstruction of claimant rights. Plaintiff proposed targeted, reasonable reforms—such as creating

integrity hold appeals processes, implementing enhanced notice requirements, and expanding

accessible communication alternatives.

Defendants’ Response fails to engage any of these systemic issues. Instead, it limits itself to

Plaintiff’s individual circumstances and ignores the extensive evidence of broader constitutional

violations. This non-response constitutes a waiver leaving the systemic violations undisputed for

purposes of this Motion.

The procedural history in this matter is straightforward and dispositive on the question of

Defendants' engagement with the record:
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 18

● February 26, 2025 — Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, identifying immediate

constitutional and statutory violations arising from systemic failures within the Division of Unemployment

Insurance's communications and appeals processes.

● March 25, 2025 — Plaintiff filed a Brief in Support of Emergency Injunction (Dkt. 16), substantially

expanding upon the original Emergency Motion. This filing included evidence of systemic due process

violations, ADA compliance failures, widespread claimant harm, and public interest factors compelling

immediate judicial oversight.

● Around April 4, 2025 — Counsel for Defendants entered their appearance on the docket, thereby gaining

full access to the Court’s electronic records, including all supplemental filings.

● April 7, 2025 — Defendants moved for and were granted an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s

Emergency Motion. The extension encompassed all live filings on the record, including Plaintiff’s March

25 Brief and the accompanying evidence.

● April 21, 2025 — Defendants filed their Response. However, Defendants’ Response fails to address or

even acknowledge Plaintiff’s March 25, 2025 Brief in Support or the systemic constitutional issues, legal

arguments, and exhibits raised therein.

Plaintiff respectfully submits that Defendants' failure to engage with the full factual and legal

record constitutes waiver of opposition to those arguments and factual assertions.

In particular, Plaintiff's March 25, 2025 Brief introduced unrebutted evidence demonstrating that

the Division's phone systems, online portals, notice mechanisms, and integrity hold review

processes systematically violate the constitutional rights of claimants statewide by denying

timely notice, appealability, and reasonable access to administrative remedies thereby

amounting to ongoing deprivation of property rights without due process of law in direct

contravention of the 1st and Fourteenth Amendment.

(A) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion Satisfies the Standard for Injunctive Relief
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 18

Defendants wrongly characterize Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion as seeking a “disfavored” form

of relief. In fact, Plaintiff’s Motion squarely satisfies the ordinary standard for preliminary

injunctive relief and is fully consistent with controlling Tenth Circuit authority.

A preliminary injunction requires showing: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;

(2) a threat of irreparable harm absent the injunction; (3) that the balance of equities favors the

moving party; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff’s March 25, 2025 Brief in Support of Emergency

Injunction (Doc. 16), which Defendants ignored, provided detailed factual and legal grounds

establishing all four elements. Plaintiff satisfies all 4 elements in full detail later in this brief.

(B) Defendants’ Ongoing Due Process Violations Are Unrebutted

The heart of Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion—and the March 25, 2025 Brief—is the ongoing and

systemic denial of procedural due process to thousands of claimants, including Plaintiff.

Defendants’ Response does not refute these essential facts:

● Defendants admit that no actionable disqualification decision was ever issued after the Plaintiff’s

2023 integrity hold was triggered;

● No notice of disqualification, no explanation of appeal rights, and no communication of a denial

was ever transmitted to Plaintiff regarding either the 2023 or 2025 claim periods;

● Defendants attempt to retroactively justify their inaction by asserting that Plaintiff “returned to

work,” without identifying any contemporaneous determination, notice, or documented closure of

the 2023 matter as required under their own integrity hold protocols.

Critically, Defendants' own declarations confirm that when a claimant fails to respond to an

integrity hold within seven days, the Division is obligated to issue a disqualification notice,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 18

including an appealable determination. Yet they now seek to excuse their admitted failure by

referencing post hoc facts irrelevant to the actual seven-day statutory and procedural deadlines.

No document has been produced, no date of mailing or issuance has been identified, and no

proof of delivery has been presented.

This failure is not a mere technicality—it strikes at the core of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

Without an actionable disqualification decision, Plaintiff was deprived of any opportunity to

appeal, to seek administrative remedy, or to petition the Division for redress. These omissions

violate well-established due process standards under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) and

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which require notice and a meaningful opportunity to

be heard before deprivation of a protected property interest.

Defendants’ evasions, contradictions, and incomplete record demonstrate that Plaintiff’s harms

were not isolated errors but the predictable and systemic result of constitutionally defective

administrative practices that remain ongoing. Immediate judicial intervention is thus warranted

to prevent further irreparable harm. These failures constitute textbook procedural due process

violations. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that individuals be afforded "adequate notice

and a meaningful opportunity to be heard" prior to the deprivation of protected interests.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267–68 (1970).

Where no notice or appealable determination is issued—as occurred here—the exhaustion

doctrine cannot apply. See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 146–48 (1992) (exhaustion not

required where administrative remedies are unavailable or inadequate).

This selective non-response constitutes a procedural and substantive concession under District of

Colorado Local Rule 7.1(d) and binding Tenth Circuit precedent. The Court is therefore entitled
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 18

to treat Plaintiff’s evidence of systemic violations as uncontested and to grant emergency relief

accordingly. Defendants' omission of any response to these due process arguments, particularly

those documented in Plaintiff’s unrebutted March 25 Brief is considered and constitutes

concession.

Plaintiff’s March 25, 2025 Brief also demonstrated systematic violations of Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.

Jeff Newcomb’s declaration, submitted by Defendants, admits that claimants can only request

disability accommodations after reaching a call center agent. This excludes claimants with

disabilities affecting communication, technology access, or stamina—those most in need of

accommodation.

Such barriers directly contravene Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533–34 (2004), which held

that Title II requires public programs to afford "meaningful access" to individuals with

disabilities. Furthermore, Defendants' reliance on broken portals and unreachable call queues to

serve as de facto accommodation mechanisms violates the ADA’s mandate that accommodations

must be "reasonable and effective."

There is no evidence of any functional, accessible online accommodation request portal or

standardized procedure for disabled claimants to assert rights. Defendants’ limited admissions

underscore the systemic nature of these ADA violations.

(D) The Systems Described by Defendants Are Theoretical and Constitutionally Deficient
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 18

Defendants describe a series of administrative processes—including phone centers, virtual

assistants, document submission portals, and appeal pathways—that, according to the record and

their own admissions, do not function in practice and fail to meet constitutional requirements.

Plaintiff’s unrebutted evidence establishes the following:

● Phone System Capacity: Defendants admit their phone system infrastructure can

accommodate only approximately 300 callers at a time, despite serving hundreds of

thousands of active or recent unemployment claimants. This structural bottleneck

predictably denies access to the vast majority of claimants seeking assistance, in violation

of procedural due process requirements.

● Absence of Callback or Prioritization Systems: There is no functioning callback system or any

method for claimants to reserve a place in queue, escalating the barriers to access for individuals

with urgent claims or disabilities.

● Non-Functionality of the "Virtual Assistant" and Feedback System: Defendants’ "virtual

assistant" was non-functional during Plaintiff’s attempts to use it in 2023 and was entirely

unavailable as of early 2025. The "feedback form" merely advises users to attempt phone calls

again, offering no substantive resolution pathway.

● Inadequacy of the MyUI+ Portal: The MyUI+ portal does not provide any avenue for claimants

to contest integrity holds, request reasonable accommodations under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, or escalate constitutional grievances. It lacks any two-way communication

capability necessary for basic due process protections.

● Lack of Privacy Compliance: There is no publicly accessible or claimant-facing privacy policy

describing how personal and sensitive information (e.g., identity documents, Social Security

numbers, medical records) is collected, used, shared, or protected, in violation of applicable

federal and state privacy laws.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 18

● Failure to Issue Actionable Decisions: Plaintiff never received a disqualification notice,

appealable determination, or explanation of rights following the 2023 integrity hold or during the

2025 claim period. This failure to provide timely notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes

an ongoing violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title III, Section

303 of the Social Security Act.

These failures are not isolated to Plaintiff alone, but reflect systemic practices that predictably

and unlawfully deprive thousands of claimants of access to public benefits, redress, and

constitutionally guaranteed procedures. The administrative frameworks Defendants describe do

not exist in any operational sense and are constitutionally insufficient as a matter of law.

Constitutional rights cannot be made contingent on successfully navigating an overburdened,

nonfunctional administrative gauntlet. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822–23 (1977) (state

must ensure meaningful access to the processes necessary for protecting fundamental rights).

IV. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion Meets and Exceeds the Standard for Relief

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, supported by the March 25, 2025 Brief in

Support (Dkt. 16), satisfies and exceeds the standards for preliminary relief under Free the

Nipple-Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, 916 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2019) and Rule 65 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants’ selective and incomplete Response fails to rebut

the systemic constitutional violations demonstrated, leaving them conceded under controlling

law. See Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 953–54 (10th Cir. 1992); Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d

1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020).

1. Plaintiff Demonstrates a Strong Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 18

Plaintiff shows systemic deprivation of procedural due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment. The failure to issue appealable determinations for integrity holds, the absence of

effective notice, and the lack of functioning resolution channels.

Plaintiff asserts a clear violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42

U.S.C. § 12132, which prohibits public entities from denying qualified individuals with

disabilities equal access to public services. Defendants’ own declarations confirm that

accommodations can only be requested if the claimant successfully reaches a phone agent—an

impossibility given the call system's severe dysfunction OR by arriving at an in person

appointment to request this on the spot.

Plaintiff establishes that Defendants have violated the First Amendment right to petition the

government for redress of grievances. Systemic barriers—including chronically overburdened

and understaffed phone systems, inaccessible online portals, and the absence of functional appeal

pathways—foreclose any meaningful opportunity for claimants to challenge unlawful

deprivations of benefits. The mere existence of theoretical administrative frameworks does not

satisfy constitutional requirements where, as here, those frameworks fail in practice. The

widespread failure to provide timely notices, actionable determinations, or accessible means of

communication renders the right to appeal illusory. Defendants’ reliance on the existence of an

appeals system that cannot be utilized due to their own systemic mismanagement and operational

negligence constitutes a direct and ongoing violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of

access to redress.

Plaintiff establishes violations of the Social Security Act, Title III, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1),

requiring state unemployment systems to ensure “full payment of unemployment compensation
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 10
of 18

when due.” Defendants' reliance on prolonged integrity holds and broken communication

pathways directly contravenes this federal mandate.

Defendants' failure to rebut these constitutional and statutory claims—despite having access to

the March 25 record for over three weeks before filing their response which remains and is not

an effective defense against these violations.

B. Plaintiff Demonstrates Personal and Widespread Irreparable Harm

Constitutional violations, particularly those involving due process rights and access to subsistence

benefits, are presumed to cause irreparable harm. Plaintiff has personally endured severe and ongoing

injuries directly traceable to Defendants’ unconstitutional practices.

After losing employment in January 2025, Plaintiff promptly filed for unemployment benefits. Relying on

the Division’s initial projections of approval and eligibility, Plaintiff made critical financial decisions,

including the payment of February rent and the continuation of essential services. Plaintiff had a

reasonable and legally protected expectation that benefits would be promptly issued, or that any delay or

barrier would be communicated with transparent due process safeguards.

Instead, Plaintiff faced months of complete silence, without any notice, actionable determination, or

access to appeal mechanisms. The Division’s communication systems purportedly the main avenue for

resolution were functionally inaccessible, plagued by collapsed phone queues, systemic call drops, and

nonfunctional escalation procedures that exist only in theory of functioning framework not seen here. As

a result, Plaintiff suffered the following irreparable harms:

● Loss of housing stability, facing imminent risk of eviction and inability to secure alternative

housing due to prolonged inability to pay rent and secure future housing without active income.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 11
of 18

● Severe financial and credit harm, including negative banking balances, cascading financial

penalties, and deterioration of credit due to inability to pay bills due monthly and penalized

reports for years not immediately fixed by retroactive benefits.

● Inability to access essential necessities, including food, critical medicine, and veterinary care for

Plaintiff’s service animal, thereby endangering both Plaintiff’s health and that of a medically

necessary support animal.

● Emotional and psychological distress, aggravated by Plaintiff’s recognized disabilities,

resulting from total exclusion from critical government services without notice, process, or

remedy.

● Violation of disability rights, as Plaintiff—qualifying under the Americans with Disabilities

Act—was provided no reasonable accommodation or alternative access, deepening the

constitutional and statutory harm.

● Loss of economic opportunity, as Plaintiff, desperate for basic financial survival, was coerced

into foregoing a request for an alternate wage period adjustment that would have substantially

increased his lawful benefits. Fear of further retaliation, confusion, or permanent benefit loss

prevented pursuit of corrections Plaintiff was entitled to seek risk too high when even basic

benefits were delayed further confusion or changes even if entitled were deterred from pursuing

due to the fear of further delays and complications which should entitle the Plaintiff to back pay

in 2025 in the difference of benefits had the base year been reasonably pursuable.

● Diversion of time and opportunity loss, where instead of seeking and securing new

employment, Plaintiff was forced to expend substantial time, energy, and attention navigating

inaccessible, broken administrative processes, filing pleadings, conducting legal research, and

engaging malfunctioning contact channels—further compounding economic and emotional

damages.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 12
of 18

Even when benefits were eventually issued belatedly in March 2025, the damages had already

been inflicted. Loss of timely access to subsistence benefits cannot be retroactively undone

through late payment. As courts have recognized, deprivation of necessities such as shelter, food,

medical care, and stability—especially for individuals with disabilities—constitutes irreparable

harm of the highest order.

These injuries are not speculative. They are ongoing, concrete, and emblematic of the harm

inflicted upon thousands of similarly situated Coloradans who are being deprived of basic

constitutional protections and life-sustaining benefits. The systemic failures challenged in this

case, indefinite integrity holds, inaccessible appeal systems, and the breakdown of notice and

communication processes that ensure that these constitutional violations continue to multiply

daily across the state.

Plaintiff's experience is not unique or isolated; it reflects the systemic failures. Like Plaintiff,

thousands of other claimants could not access live agents (see Ex. A, Google Maps reviews) or

receive clear notice and appeals options (see Ex. B, 9News article).

The systemic dimension of this harm is documented by hundreds of public complaints (Exhibit

A), news investigations (Exhibit B), and federal oversight reports (Exhibit C), demonstrating

thousands of Coloradans trapped in identical unconstitutional deadlocks. These harms cannot be

remedied retroactively by monetary compensation. Immediate injunctive relief is required to

prevent further irreparable harm to Plaintiff and to the broader claimant population who remain

trapped in an unconstitutional and collapsing benefits system.

C. The Balance of Equities Strongly Favors Plaintiff
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 13
of 18

The Division’s assertion that administrative burdens prevent compliance with Plaintiff’s

requested relief must be rejected. Courts have long recognized that administrative convenience

cannot justify constitutional violations. When the deprivation of core constitutional rights,

including due process, the right to petition, and equal access under the ADA, is at stake, the

balance of equities must favor protecting those rights.

Plaintiff’s March 25, 2025 Brief (Dkt. 16) and accompanying exhibits demonstrate that the

Colorado Division of Unemployment Insurance’s reliance on mass-automated integrity holds ,

outsourced to third-party vendors without proper safeguards which has systematically denied

thousands of claimants timely notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, or any reasonable

means of appeal. Claimants are funneled into a broken communication structure, with a single

call queue capable of handling only a tiny fraction of daily demand, while the Division’s own

filings reveal hundreds of employees and millions allocated to private contracts without adequate

oversight.

These failures are not theoretical. They directly obstruct First Amendment rights to petition,

violate the due process protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and infringe on

disabled claimants’ rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The systemic

nature of these constitutional injuries, already documented through public testimony, news

reports, and government oversight findings, demands urgent correction.

Plaintiff does not seek to impose sweeping or impractical reforms. Instead, Plaintiff proposes

modest, targeted corrective actions;

● Creation of a dedicated integrity hold resolution channel, which allows secure

submissions without requiring claimants to combine highly sensitive
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 14
of 18

information—including Social Security cards, driver's licenses, W-2s, and

passports—into a single vulnerable document. This reform ensures compliance with

federal and state privacy protections, including the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. §

552a), Colorado's Data Privacy Statutes (C.R.S. §§ 6-1-713 to 713.5), HIPAA (for

disability-related medical information), and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

standards for handling personally identifiable information (PII).

● Confirmation of actual notice delivery, particularly where significant time has elapsed,

such as when a 2023 issue is later relied upon in a 2025 application. Renewal of notice

obligations upon the filing of a new claim would ensure that claimants receive timely,

updated instructions and preserve their constitutional right to meaningful notice and

opportunity to be heard.

● Limited, targeted resource reallocation within the Division’s existing infrastructure.

Publicly available data shows the Division employs over 500 staff, yet fewer than 100 are

assigned to claims processing. Reasonable internal adjustments, without additional hiring,

could promptly address backlogs and urgent constitutional deficiencies.

● Implementation of ADA-compliant access pathways for claimants with disabilities,

eliminating the current impermissible requirement that disabled individuals must first

reach a live representative—or travel in person—to even request an accommodation.

Such practices violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and must be

corrected to provide accessible, independent options for accommodation requests at all

points of contact.

These requested remedies are constitutionally compelled, minimally disruptive, and

proportionate to the scope of the ongoing systemic harm affecting thousands of Colorado
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 15
of 18

residents. Defendants offer no alternative remedial plan and defend systems that openly violate

the constitutional and statutory protections owed to claimants. Equity thus overwhelmingly

favors immediate injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs are not required to design alternative administrative systems or prove that a

superior model could exist. Rather, Plaintiff’s burden is to demonstrate that Defendants’

existing structures violate constitutional and statutory rights, that these violations cause

ongoing harm, and that judicial intervention is necessary. Administrative inconvenience

cannot shield unlawful government conduct.

Plaintiff’s March 25 Brief (Dkt. 16) proves systemic violations of procedural due process, First

Amendment rights, and ADA Title II requirements through nonfunctional communication

systems, indefinite integrity holds, and inaccessible grievance mechanisms, affecting thousands

of Coloradans (Exhibits A–C). While reforms may require reallocation of resources, the

Division's staffing levels (over 500 employees) and multi-million-dollar IT expenditures (see

CDLE Budget) show capacity exists. 1 See Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, FY

2025–26 Joint Budget Committee Hearing Agenda (Dec. 12, 2024) (noting need for major UI

system upgrades, staffing shortages, and operational backlogs undermining service delivery to

claimants) (Pages 25–32 of 153).

This public document further corroborates the systemic failures outlined in Plaintiff’s March 25,

2025 Brief. The FY 2025–26 Joint Budget Committee Hearing Agenda shows that the Division’s

leadership has long been aware of severe deficiencies, including staffing shortages, outdated

systems, operational backlogs, and excessive reliance on costly third-party vendors. Legislative

1
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
FY 2025-26 JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE HEARING AGENDA
Thursday, December 12, 2024
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 16
of 18

inquiries by state senators further questioned CDLE’s financial management, exposing

discrepancies between budget allocations and service delivery, and highlighting millions of

dollars spent without measurable improvements for claimants.

These admissions confirm that Colorado’s unemployment system remains fundamentally broken

despite massive expenditures. Rather than addressing constitutional deficiencies, Defendants

have diverted public funds toward ineffective fraud prevention measures that harm legitimate

claimants. The State’s fraud statistics misleadingly conflate the denial of legitimate claims with

true fraud prevention, masking the unconstitutional withholding of benefits from rightful

recipients.

Viewed alongside the full evidentiary record already before the Court, the FY 2025–26 Budget

Hearing makes clear that these are not isolated administrative errors. They are the result of

systemic, ongoing failures that continue to inflict constitutional harm on thousands of

Coloradans, necessitating immediate judicial intervention.

Under Goldberg v. Kelly, administrative failures and burdens never justify depriving individuals

of constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court must find Defendants presently noncompliant and

require immediate injunctive relief to prevent further constitutional harm.

The equities weigh decisively in favor of immediate judicial intervention.

D. Granting Relief Serves the Overwhelming Public Interest

The public interest is best served by safeguarding constitutional rights, ensuring lawful access to

critical subsistence benefits, and restoring transparency and accountability to government

systems. Plaintiff’s exhibits document an overwhelming pattern of legitimate claimants losing
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 17
of 18

homes, experiencing food insecurity, falling into debt, and suffering emotional collapse because

of Defendants’ unconstitutional practices. The situation is not hypothetical; it is daily reality for

thousands of Coloradans.

The continued deprivation of unemployment benefits without due process or meaningful

recourse exacerbates Colorado’s housing crisis, increases reliance on public services, and

compounds health disparities all of which are outcomes fundamentally against the public

interest.

Conclusion

Plaintiff has demonstrated, through this record, that severe and ongoing constitutional violations

are occurring under the current practices of the Colorado Division of Unemployment Insurance.

These systemic failures deprive thousands of Coloradans of due process, access to justice, and

fundamental subsistence rights, causing daily and irreparable harm that cannot be undone.

Defendants’ narrow and incomplete response offers no substantive rebuttal to the widespread

harm proven in this record, nor any assurance that these unconstitutional practices will cease

without immediate judicial intervention.

The reality facing Plaintiff and countless others is not theoretical, speculative, or remedial

through ordinary administrative means. It is a daily, ongoing deprivation of constitutional

protections critical to survival. No administrative inconvenience, no appeal to resource

limitations, can outweigh the fundamental rights at stake.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 34 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 18
of 18

The urgency of this situation, the magnitude of the harm, and the clear record of systemic

failures compel this Court to act. The constitutional injuries inflicted upon the public will only

deepen without prompt and decisive relief.

Emergency injunctive relief is necessary to prevent further irreparable harm, to restore

constitutional compliance, and to protect the basic rights of Colorado’s most vulnerable

residents.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________

Date: 05-01-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff

Joshua Abrams, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on 05-01-2025 a true and accurate copy of the Defendant was served on the other party by:
X_E-filed, lauren.davison@coag.gov & Stephen.woolsey@coag.gov

__________________________________________

❑Petitioner/Plaintiff

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cod.239393.34.0.pdf
Size: 303,612 bytes
SHA-256: f93fc547ca5074555a35f9d8dfb356929fccdc829967b132ac19ab53e407d3af
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cod.239393.34.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Reply Brief Emergency Injunction Unemployment 2025

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records