The court has entered a temporary restraining order in this class action challenge to the state's policy of providing lower benefits to those who have resided in the state for under twelve months. The plaintiffs claim that the policy violates the right to equal protection, the right to travel, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution. The state's policy, effective April 1, 1997, is the same one that the Ninth Circuit invalidated in 1994 in Green v. Anderson, 26 F.3rd 96 (9th Cir.) aff'g 811 F. Supp. 516 (E.D. Cal. 1993). The United States Supreme Court subsequently vacated and remanded the case on other grounds, 115 S.Ct. 1059 (1995). CH #pending.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Mark Rosenbaum et. al. ACLU Foundation of So.
California, 1616 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90026, tel. (213) 977-9500;
Martha Davis et al., NOW Legal Defense & Ed. Fund (NYC); ACLU Foundation
of San Diego & Imperial Counties; ACLU Foundation of No. California.
Davila v. Hammons, Index No. 407163/96 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co., March 24, 1997)
In an oral ruling from the bench, the Court has granted class certification and a preliminary injunction in this case which challenges New York City's practice of assigning Aid to Dependent Children recipients to unpaid work in the City's Work Experience Program ("WEP") without doing a thorough and objective assessment of whether education or training assignments would be more appropriate for the recipient. Although the precise contours of the judge's ruling will not be apparent until a written order is signed sometime in April, the preliminary injunction at least requires the City to do objective assessments of recipients' needs and to make assignments consistent with the assessments. This case was last reported upon in the December 1996 Welfare Bulletin. CH # pending.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan and Christopher Lamb, Welfare Law
Center; The Legal Aid Society of New York City; and Davis Polk & Wardwell.
Abreu v. Callahan, Civ. No. ____ (S.D.N.Y., complaint filed Mar. 1997).
This class action, brought on behalf of legal permanent residents who are disabled, blind, or elderly applicants for or recipients of SSI and related Food Stamps, challenges the denial or loss of SSI and Food Stamps solely on the basis of the plaintiffs' immigrant status as required by . 402 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. Plaintiffs claim that the federal statute invidiously discriminates on the basis of alienage in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs also challenge as a violation of Title XVI of the Social Security Act and due process the failure to pay retroactive SSI for the period before August 22, 1996 to class members who applied for SSI before that date and who but for their immigrant status would otherwise be eligible for such benefits. The class consists of aged, blind, or disabled legal permanent residents in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont who were residing in the United States on Aug. 22, 1997 and who were receiving SSI or are or will be SSI applicants but who are disqualified by the federal statute. (The City of New York has filed a similar challenge). CH # pending.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Constance Carden et al., New York Legal Assistance
Group, 130 E. 59th St., New York, NY 10022, tel. (212) 750-0800; and attorneys
from the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Disability Advocacy
Rights, and the Legal Aid Society.
Sutich et al. v. Callahan, Case No. _______ (N.D. Cal., complaint filed March 1997).
This class action challenges . 402 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, which makes legal immigrants ineligible for SSI solely because they are not citizens. Plaintiffs are elderly, blind, and disabled lawful permanent residents as of August 22, 1996 whose SSI applications have been denied because of . 402 or whose SSI benefits will be terminated on or before August 22, 1997 because of . 402. They claim that . 402 violates their right to equal protection as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. CH # pending.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Judith Gold et al., Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, 333 Bush St., San Francisco, CA 94104, tel. (415) 772-6000; Alan Schlosser, Edward Chen, ACLU Foundation of No. California, 1663 Mission St., 4th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94103, tel. (415) 621-2493; and other groups.
Henrietta D. v. Giuliani, 95 Civ. 0641 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 1996). Plaintiffs, New York City residents with AIDS or HIV, brought a challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. . 794(a), against New York City's failure to assist them in applying and qualifying for federal and state benefits, including AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. Plaintiffs contended in a motion for class-wide preliminary relief that New York City's Division of AIDS Services ("DAS") is presently ineffectual and that a proposed restructuring would only exacerbate the inability of persons with AIDS or HIV to have equal access to government benefits. Plaintiffs sought to have the restructuring stayed. The Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and held that, while DAS is flawed, plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claim that DAS did not meet the legal requirement of serving as a reasonable modifi-cation for the disabled as contemplated by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The Court observed that some form of accommodation was probably mandated by statute and then determined that DAS does serve to assist plaintiffs in meaningfully accessing welfare benefits. The Court granted class certification and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. CH # pending.
Plaintiffs' Counsel: Theresa McGovern, HIV Law Project, 841 Broadway, Suite 608, New York, New York 10003.