Full text
1
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, et al
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com |720-910-4829
P.O. Box 761 Loveland CO 80539
Case Number:
1:24-cv-03390
Division: Courtroom
Plaintiff’s Motion to Leave to Supplement Complaint
Plaintiff respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) for leave to file a
supplemental pleading addressing newly documented evidence of fraudulent conduct and
systemic ADA accessibility failures by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s co-filed supplemental submissions concerning the exclusion of
out-of-state wages and the cancellation of Plaintiff’s appeal further show need to leave.
1.The first supplemental issue concerns Defendant’s coercion of claimants into use of the U.S.
Bank “ReliaCard” prepaid debit product. Plaintiff was falsely informed that his personal bank
account was “incompatible” with direct deposit and was compelled to enroll in ReliaCard in
order to receive benefits. Subsequent deposits into that same bank account after ReliaCard
enrollment had been forced prove that the representation was false when made. Publicly
available fee schedules confirm that ReliaCard carries significant costs, including out-of-network
ATM fees and inactivity fees, creating financial harm to claimants while generating private
revenue. If discovery reveals revenue-sharing or incentive agreements between Defendant and
U.S. Bank, such conduct would implicate 18 U.S.C. § 666 (bribery and theft concerning
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 49 filed 08/29/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DENVER, COLORADO
JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
8:37 am, Aug 29, 2025
2
programs receiving federal funds) and the Anti-Kickback Statute, under 18 U.S.C. § 666, Even
absent direct remuneration, steering claimants into a fee-laden financial product through
misrepresentation constitutes fraud, violates the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and
constitutes an unfair practice and unjust enrichment.
2.The second supplemental issue concerns ADA accessibility. Title II of the ADA prohibits
public entities from using methods of administration that deny individuals with disabilities equal
access to services and requires communications to be “as effective” as those with nondisabled
individuals. Defendant operates almost exclusively through a single telephone system that
imposes prolonged wait times, routinely issues false promises of callback, and provides no
reliable electronic method to request or secure accommodations.
Critically, there is no publicly available policy, online guide, or electronic option explaining how
to request ADA accommodations; the only method is to reach a live call center agent and request
it orally. This system makes ADA rights contingent on claimants successfully navigating a
telephone queue of tens of thousands with only sixty employees, rendering accommodations
illusory and inaccessible in practice.
3.Plaintiff submits Exhibit A (audio recording of a March 2025 call) and Exhibit B (certified
transcript of that call) both redacted to removed Plaintiff’s Social Security Numbers
demonstrating one such false promise of callback after a twenty-six-minute hold. No callback
ever occurred, delaying benefits and denying equal program access. Defendant’s failure to
produce these call recordings or provide any ADA policy documents raises Rule 37(e) concerns
regarding spoliation and concealment of electronically stored information. Plaintiff requests that
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 49 filed 08/29/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3
3
the Court order production of all ReliaCard contractual agreements and all call recordings, call
logs, and ADA accommodation policies, and enter a preservation order covering the same.
4.These supplemental allegations are targeted and probative. They show that Defendant’s benefit
delivery system is structured around fraud and deception in financial disbursement and denies
individuals with disabilities any meaningful access to accommodations. They bear directly on the
merits of Plaintiff’s pending requests for emergency injunctive relief, establish ongoing
irreparable harm, and weigh heavily in favor of judicial intervention. Because these allegations
arise from the same unemployment claim already at issue, involve the same defendant, and
concern ongoing agency conduct, supplementation will not cause prejudice or delay.
5.This evidence, when considered alongside Plaintiff’s original claims, objection to dismissal,
and pending requests for emergency injunctive relief, further demonstrates a systemic pattern of
bad faith, obstruction, and unlawful conduct by Defendant. The record establishes that
Defendant’s actions were not isolated errors but part of a recurring scheme carried out with
recklessness and disregard for legal obligations. These practices have caused and continue to
cause foreseeable, compounding, and large-scale constitutional and financial harm both to
Plaintiff individually and to claimants across the system.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________
Date: 08-28-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on 08-28-2025 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
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 49 filed 08/29/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3