Minnefield v. McIntire, Civil Action No. 99-3349 (Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk Cy., Aug. 30, 1999)
The court has granted preliminary relief in this case, filed as a class action by caretakers of children with disabilities, which challenges the state policy of denying an exemption from time limits, work requirements, and a grant reduction on the grounds that the child is not receiving SSI. State law exempts parents caring for a disabled child or spouse but the state agency limits the exemption with respect to children to those children receiving SSI while caretakers of disabled adults not receiving SSI receive an exemption. The named plaintiffs are mothers of children with serious medical and psychiatric conditions who are unable to participate in work activities because of their need to care for their children. They had provided medical documentation of their children's conditions but were denied the exemption. Plaintiffs sought preliminary relief from the court on their claims that the state policy violates the state statute granting the exemption, the state statute requiring "fair, just, and equitable" administration, and a statutory provision barring termination of aid for failure to comply with a requirement where the failure is due to disability or illness. (Plaintiffs' complaint also raises claims under the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions.) In a lengthy opinion the court concluded that the state legislature, in enacting the exemption, recognized that these caretakers cannot reasonably be expected to maintain employment and meet their responsibilities to their children. It emphasized the stricter disability standard faced by caretakers of disabled children, found that nothing in the history of the legislation indicated the legislature's intent to provide less protection to caretakers of disabled children than caretakers of disabled adults, and concluded that the disability standard and process for determining disability must be comparable for children and adults. Thus, the state agency's policy violates the state statutes described above. Plaintiffs' counsel reports that the state has decided not to appeal and will issue revised regulations.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Deborah Harris and Ruth Bourquin, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, 99 Chauncey St., Suite 500, Boston, MA, tel. 617-357-0700, E-mail: dharris@gbls.org; Brian Flynn et. al. Greater Boston Legal Services, 197 Friend St., Boston, MA 02114, tel. 617-371-1270, x. 619, email: bflynn@gbls.org.
Katherine W. v. Borland, 99CS00596 (Calif Super. Ct., July 30, 1999)
San Mateo County had developed a "demonstration project" under legal authority allowing projects to test methods and procedures of administration. The Court has preliminarily agreed with plaintiffs that the County has changed eligibility rules (full family sanctions, more hours of work and commutation required, less accommodation to educational programs, less adequate notices before termination, etc.). The court gave the parties 30 days to develop a remedial plan to implement the court's ruling. Press accounts note that the County's rolls dropped from 6,500 to 2,000 recipients in the two years of the project.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Sarah E. Kurtz and R. Renee Glover, East Palo Alto Community Law Project, 1395 Bay Road, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, tel. 650-853-1600; Clare Pastore and Emma Leheny, Western Center on Law and Poverty, 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208, Los Angeles, CA 90010, tel. 213-487-7211, ext. 25; David S. Steuer and Shirley C. Wang, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, tel. 650-493-9300, ext. 4934; Eugenie Mitchell, Northern California Lawyers for Civil Justice, 604 12th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, tel. 916-554-3310; and Doris Ng, Equal Rights Advocates, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 550, San Francisco, CA 94103, tel. 415-621-0672.
Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation et al. v. Contra Costa County Dept. of Social Services, OCR # 09-98-3131, USDA Case # 980422-1691 (May 1999) (Resolution Agreement)
The County agency has entered into an agreement with the Offices of Civil Rights for the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) to resolve a discrimination complaint filed by Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation and others under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1994 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The complaint claims that the agency failed to provide services in appropriate languages to those with limited English proficiency who speak Southeast Asian languages and to provide those with disabilities with an equal opportunity to benefit from its programs. The agency has agreed to provide language appropriate services and has further agreed that those with disabilities shall not be excluded from its programs. The most specific provisions of the agreement deal with the steps that the agency will take to provide language appropriate services, including translation services, notices, and staff training. According to a report from the Western Center on Law and Poverty, because of the nature of the federal administrative complaint process, clients' representatives did not approve the agreement. While the agreement has a number of positive provisions, advocates consider it inadequate in some respects and have urged the Washington Office of Civil Rights not to use this agreement as a model.
For further information: Jodie Berger, Employment Law Center, 1663 Mission St., Ste 400, San Francisco, CA 94103-2449, tel. 415 864-8848.
Grant v. Kearny, Civil Action No. ____ (S.D. Florida, complaint filed August 1999)
This case, filed as a class action, challenges the state's failure to provide Medicaid as required by federal law to eligible parents and children who have been terminated from WAGES cash assistance since August 22, 1996 or who will be terminated in the future. Defendants are officials of the state agencies that administer the Medicaid program. Plaintiffs claims that the defendants' policies and practices violate 1) Section 1931 of the Social Security Act which de-links Medicaid and cash assistance eligibility; 2) federal regulations requiring the state to redetermine eligibility, consider other possible bases for Medicaid eligibility when terminating Medicaid coverage under any given eligibility category, and continue Medicaid during the redetermination process; 3) federal law providing Transitional Medicaid coverage for those terminated from 1931 coverage or cash aid due to earnings; 4) federal law providing for Extended Medicaid to families terminated from 1931 Medicaid or cash aid due to child support or alimony; 5) federal law requiring notice to families of their right to Transitional Medicaid; and 6) federal regulatory and due process requirements for timely and adequate notice of Medicaid terminations. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including retroactive reinstatement and continuation of eligibility until they are determined ineligible, and prospective eligibility for those improperly denied Transitional or Extended Medicaid for a period equal to the period for which they were improperly denied.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Charles Elsesser and Miriam Harmatz, Florida Legal Services, 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 450, Miami, FL 33137, tel. 305-573-0092, email: mh_fls@earthlink.net; JoNel Newman, Florida Justice Institute, 2870 First Union Financial Center, 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33131, tel. 305-358-2081.
Brukhman v. Giuliani, Case No. 407215/96 (New York Court of Appeals) (Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief)
Plaintiffs have filed their brief to New York's highest court in their appeal from the adverse appellate court decision rejecting their claim that the City defendants must use the prevailing wage in calculating the number of hours of workfare participation. Plaintiffs are public assistance recipients required to work in the Work Experience Program (WEP), a workfare program, as a condition of receiving their public assistance. The appellate court decision had reversed the favorable lower court decision, concluding that plaintiffs no longer had a claim since the state welfare law requiring use of the prevailing wage in determining workfare hours had been repealed and rejecting their constitutional claim. It had further dismissed their other federal and state constitutional claim, and failed to address other claims. Plaintiffs argue for reversal on several bases. First, they argue that the appellate court found that WEP workers can never be considered to be performing public work within the meaning of article I, section 17 of the New York State Constitution in direct contradiction to the judicial interpretation of that section. That provision guarantees the prevailing wage to workers performing public work. Secondly, they argue that the court incorrectly dismissed the complaint despite the fact that the plaintiffs had claims for relief under statutes existing when the action was filed. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the Appellate Court incorrectly dismissed their claim for treatment comparable to that received by other workers in quantum meruit and under the equal protection clauses of the New York and federal constitutions.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan of the Welfare Law Center, email: cohan@welfarelaw.org; Richard Blum, The Legal Aid Society, 953 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10459-3428, tel. 718- 991-4758; fax 718-842-2867; email blum@legal-aid.org; Catherine Ruckelshaus and James Williams, National Employment Law Project, 55 John street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10038- 3044, tel. 212-285-3025, fax 212-285-3044; email cruckelshaus@nelp.org and jwilliams@nelp.org; and Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York City. Attorney for Amici: Richard J. Ferreri, 125 Barclay Street, New York, NY 10007.
Jones v. Ohio Department of Human Services,, Case No. 98-CV-143 (July 20, 1999)
The court has reversed a sanction imposed on the appellant for failure to comply with a "self-sufficiency contract." The contract did not provide the time when she was expected to be at the Jobs Club program or provide for her child care needs. The court found that the client had made good faith efforts to comply, had contacted agency workers numerous times about the child care issue, had received misinformation or no information from the workers, had reasonably relied on the negligent misrepresentations and had accordingly been sanctioned. The court reversed the sanction decisions based on equitable estoppel. Although the court noted that the doctrine does not generally apply against the government, it found that estoppel applies when a government agent misinforms a person as to an existing right. In this case, the appellant had a right to child care and a right to amend her contract based on her child care need. The agency workers' failure to advise her of these rights caused her to be sanctioned. [For further information on equitable estoppel under Ohio law, contact Beth Kowalczyk, Ohio State Legal Services Association, email: bethK@iwaynenet.net]
Plaintiff's representative: Rachel K. Robinson, Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, Steubenville, Ohio.
In re V.M. (Ohio Dept. of Human Services, June 11, 1999)
The hearing officer rejected the agency's grounds for sanctioning the appellant because the agency's requirement that the appellant report that she could not attend her work assignment within one hour of the assignment was not in writing in the self-sufficiency contract. Further, the hearing officer found that the appellant's lack of consistent transportation to the work site was good cause for noncompliance because the work site was seven miles from her home, she had no driver's license or car, and she was unable to pay her friend to take her to the work site every day. The hearing officer specifically held that "[i]t is not reasonable for the agency to expect appellant to have a friend drive her to her work site every day without compensation." Reprinted from OSLSA Reports [a publication of Ohio State Legal Services Association], Volume 21, No. 7, July 1999.
Appellant's representative: Robin Bozian, Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, Marietta, Ohio.