Civ. Act. No. 99-CV-10393 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 1, 2000) (Preliminary injunction).
In this pending class action, U.S. District Court Judge Roberts has granted a preliminary injunction barring the state from requiring welfare applicants and recipients to submit to suspicionless drug testing as a condition of benefit receipt. Plaintiffs claim that such drug testing is an unreasonable search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court had previously granted a temporary restraining order and class certification to plaintiffs.
In concluding that plaintiffs met the standards for preliminary relief, the court found that they are likely to succeed on the merits at trial. Generally, for a search to be within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, the persons executing the search must have a warrant and probable cause. The court explained that a suspicionless search completed without a warrant and probable cause, such as the drug testing of welfare recipients, violates the Fourth Amendment unless there are special government interests (called "special needs") which outweigh the warrant and probable cause requirement. The special government interest required in all drug testing cases has been public safety. The public safety interest articulated by Michigan was preventing child abuse and neglect that may accompany drug abuse. The court found that because the primary purpose of the TANF law is not to prevent child abuse but rather to provide financial assistance to needy families, this was not a legitimate argument. Because the court found that the state had no special needs which justified suspicionless drug testing, it was unnecessary to apply the Fourth Amendment balancing test to the issue - effectively, the state was found to have no legitimate interest to balance against the individual's privacy interest. Similarly, the court found that the other requirements for preliminary relief were satisfied. Because the right to be free from illegal searches is a fundamental right, its potential violation demonstrates a likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. The court further concluded that there is no legal harm posed by refusing to allow the state to violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights and that the plaintiffs are likely to win on the merits of this case.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Robert A. Sedler, Wayne Statue University law School, 468 W. Ferry, Detroit, MI 48202, tel. (313) 577-3968; Cameron R. Getto and David R. Getto, Sommers Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 900, Southfield, MI 48075, tel. (248) 355-0300; Kary L. Moss, American Civil Liberties Union of MI, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Suite 2910, Detroit, MI 48226, tel. (313) 961-7728; Graham Boyd, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 160 Foster Street, New Haven, CT 06511, tel. (203) 787-4188.
Case No. 317039 (Superior Ct., San Francisco Cy., Cal. ) (Complaint filed Nov. 30, 2000; Stipulation and Order Dec. 1, 2000)
This case challenges as contrary to state law California's policy of deeming income from a grandparent to a grandchild for purposes of determining the grandchild's eligibility and grant amount under CalWORKS, the state's TANF Program. Specifically, the case challenges the counting of child support paid by a non-custodial parent to a custodial parent for a minor parent as income to the minor parent's child. As a result of counting the grandparent's income, the grandchild was denied assistance. State law bars counting of a grandparent's income to the grandchild. Plaintiff claims that the challenged policy, reflected in a "Q & A" to the counties, violates both the state welfare statute and the state Administrative Procedure Act, insofar as it has not been promulgated in accordance with the state APA. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including back benefits. A stipulated TRO has been issued.
Plaintiff's attorneys: Jennifer Horne, Hope Nakamura, Peter Reid, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, 521 East 5th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94402, tel. 650-558-0915; Sarah E. Kurtz, Eve Stotland, National Center for Youth Law, 405 14th St., 15th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, tel. 510 835-8098.(San Francisco Superior Court, California) (Settlement, Sept. 14, 2000).
Judge Garcia of the San Francisco Superior Court has approved the negotiated settlement in this challenge to several aspects of the "Maximum Family Grant" or MFG rule. MFG is the state law (Welf. & Inst. Code § 11450.04) that denies an increase in aid to families already on welfare who have additional children, if prior written notice was given and no exceptions apply. (This policy is commonly known as the family cap.) Under the settlement, which is effective September 1, 2000, the MFG rule will no longer bar aid to babies born to persons receiving aid as a minor on an adult's welfare case, once the minor becomes head of her own household. (Minors become heads of households either by reaching age 18 and applying for benefits, or by meeting one of the exceptions to the "teen living arrangement rule" in Welf. & Inst. Code § 11254 and MPP § 89-200)). In addition, because the notices used until now to inform families about the MFG rule did not specify that teen parents were covered, any teen parent whose baby is currently barred from aid by the MFG rule can get a grant adjustment and the baby added immediately, with benefits for the baby back to September 1, 2000.
The settlement also requires the counties to provide annual notice of the MFG rule to all families at redetermination and forbids the application of the rule as of November 2001 to families who did not receive the revised informational notice, and as of November 2002 to any family whose file does not contain a signed acknowledgment. Finally, the settlement also prohibits DSS' policy of counting "zero basic grant" and "suspense" months in which families receive no payments as months of receipt of aid for purposes of determining whether the family has received aid continuously for 10 months prior to the birth of the baby. [This information was provided by the Western Center on Law and Poverty.]
Plaintiffs' attorneys:: Clare Pastore, Western Center on Law and Poverty (213) 487-7211, ext.25; email: cpastore@wclp.org; Martha Matthews and Rocio Cordoba, ACLU of Southern California (213) 977-9500, ext. 236 (Rocio); (213) 977-5269 (Martha).
Esx-L 10171-97 (N.J. Superior Ct.,Essex, August 2000).
This case challenges the New Jersey child exclusion provision, which denies an AFDC grant increase to a child conceived by and born to a household eligible for welfare within a year before the child's birth. Plaintiffs claim that the policy violates the equal protection and privacy guarantees of Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. Plaintiffs' counsel reports that the court has issued an adverse decision, but that there is no written opinion or order available yet.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Lenora Lapidus, et. al. American Civil Liberties Union of N.J. , 2 Washington Pl., Newark, NJ 07102; tel. 201-642-2086; Martha Davis, Sherry Leiwant, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; tel. 212-925-6635 (sleiwan t@nowldef.org); Lawrence Lustberg et al., Crummy Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, Newark, NJ.
C.A. No. H-983082 (S.D. Tex., January 28, 2000) (Consent order).
Fourteen plaintiffs challenged the Texas Department of Human Services (TDHS) for failing to process Food stamp initial and recertification applications on a timely basis. Although not a class action, the plaintiffs have obtained classwide relief. The Consent Order, to be in effect for 32 months, contains detailed provisions including compliance rates; definition of timeliness; requirements that the defendant provide monthly reports on timely processing of applications and other related information to plaintiffs' attorneys; reasonable efforts to be taken by the state to modify the computer system to record timeliness data improvements; training of workers and amendment of the workers' handbook to reflect changes made as a result of the consent order.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Mario Caballero, Gulf Coast Legal Foundation, 1415 Fannin, Houston, Texas 77002; tel. 713-652-0077; fax 713-652-3815; David Kahne, Civil Rights and Economic Development Organization, Inc., P.O. Box 66386, Houston, Texas 77266; tel 71-652-5773; fax 713-652-5773; Bruce Bower, Texas Legal Services Center, 815 Brazos, Suite 1101, Austin, Texas 78701; tel 512-477-6000; fax 512-477-6576.
C.A. No. H-96-2308 (S.D.Tex., March 16, 1998) (Compromise Settlement and Release).
Four plaintiffs filed an action against the Commissioners of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) challenging TWC's telephone hearing system for unemployment compensation benefits appeals. Plaintiffs' alleged that: (1) TWC violated its own rules by changing to a virtual 100% telephone hearing system without approval from the TWC Administrator; (2) telephone hearings, in general, violate fair hearing requirements; and (3) the practice and procedure for handling documents in telephone hearings violates a party's due process right and the fair hearing requirements. The settlement addresses how telephone hearings are conducted. For example, it addresses the notices and information to be mailed to both parties to a hearing; provides that TWC will provide telephone/speakerphone/fax access and accommodations for those who need it; requires TWC to provide expeditious translation into English of any documents written in foreign languages which are to be used in connection with the hearings; and provides for changes to be made in the Hearing Officer's Handbook to reflect instructions as to witness identification and document handling. Two of the individual plaintiffs were awarded the full monetary relief they would have been received had they prevailed at their administrative hearings. The others plaintiffs were granted new administrative hearings. In addition, every six months TWC is required to mail to plaintiffs' attorney documents reflecting the above described mandated changes of policy and practice.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Mario Caballero, Gulf Coast Legal Foundation, 1415 Fannin, Houston, Texas 77002; tel. 713-652-0077; fax 713-652-3815; Bruce Bower, Texas Legal Services Center, 815 Brazos, Suite 1101, Austin, Texas 78701; tel 512-477-6000; fax 512-477-6576.
1999 SD 108; 598 N.W.2d 887 (S.D. Sup. Ct., Aug. 11, 1999).
In this case, the plaintiffs, a husband and wife, appealed a decision by a trial court holding that it was lawful to remove the wife's portion of her families' public assistance package because the wife was a resident alien. The plaintiffs lost on appeal. Prior to the enactment of TANF the entire family, including the husband and resident alien wife, had been receiving public benefits. As a result of changes in the TANF statute creating new eligibility criteria, the wife was removed from the families' public assistance grant due to her resident alien status. Plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that denial of benefits to a nonresident alien violated the equal protection guarantees of the state and federal constitutions by treating aliens differently than non-aliens. Applying a rational basis standard of review, the court held that such different treatment was rationally related to the state's interest in regulating immigration and promoting self-sufficiency among aliens.
Civ. Act. 402791/98, (N.Y. Supreme Ct., Appellate Division, 1st Dep't. May 1999).
The appellate court unanimously affirmed a January 1999 decision that denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state implementation of a state statute that restricts eligibility for food stamp benefits to those non-citizens (1) who were living in the United States as of August 22, 1996; (2) are either elderly, disabled or under 18 years old; (3) who have not been outside the United States for more than 90 days in the year preceding their application for food stamps; (4) and have either applied for citizenship or who do apply for citizenship within 30 days. The plaintiffs in the action are lawful resident aliens who do not fall into these five categories and assert that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
The Court reasoned that generally State classification of aliens is subject to strict scrutiny. It found, however, that the classification challenged in this case was enacted in direct response to a Federal appropriations bill authorizing the States to provide food assistance to aliens no longer eligible for federally-funded food stamps by reason of the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act of 1996. Therefore, the court held that the challenged provisions are entitled to the same rational basis review as a federally-enacted law classifying aliens. On this basis, the court affirmed the lower court's holding that the State acted reasonably in its categorization of lawful resident aliens entitled to assistance. The lower court found that focusing on the elderly, the infirm and minors in need of assistance is within the legislature's authority of having a reasonable basis. Furthermore, it found that these lawful resident aliens are entitled to assistance, as they were here before the enactment of the new welfare law, and those entering after had constructive knowledge that food assistance would not be available. A further appeal was not considered because intervening action by Congress restored Food Stamps to a majority of the plaintiff class.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Mary Ellen Burns, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp., 76 Wadsworth Ave., New York, NY 10033; tel. 212-822-8329; Chris Bowes, Center for Disability Advocacy, 841 Broadway, Suite 605, New York, NY 10003; tel. 212-979-0505; Marc Cohan and Rebecca Scharf, Welfare Law Center, 275 7th Ave., Suite 1205, New York, NY 10001; tel. 212-633-6967; Scott A. Rosenberg and Helen Lee, The Legal Aid Society, 90 Church St. New York, NY 10007; tel 212-577-3360; Barbara Weiner, The Greater Upstate Law Project, 119 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12210, tel. 518-462-6831; Constance P. Carden and Michael Scherz, New York Legal Assistance Group Inc., 130 East 59th St., New York, NY 10033, tel. 212-979-0505.
Civ. Action No. 1674 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 2000) (Complaint).
In this class action Make the Road by Walking (MRBW) and two individual plaintiffs challenge New York City's refusal to allow advocates access to Welfare Centers as a violation of federal constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment, due process and equal protection. Specifically, advocates are not allowed access to Welfare Centers unless they are representing specific claimants. Plaintiffs assert that the City's denial of access to advocates results in a greater risk of erroneous denials and terminations of assistance in a complex welfare system. They assert that many claimants can benefit from the aid of advocates but arrive at Welfare Centers without one because they may not know that advocates are available, may be unable to locate an advocate or may not realize that they need an advocate initially.
Plaintiff Sanchez alleges that she and her sick baby went without cash assistance and needed medical treatment when she was unable to get her case reopened for three months because of the mismanagement at the Welfare Center. She claims that during multiple visits to the Center she had great difficulty communicating with the workers because of her limited English proficiency and was not given an interpreter; that she was not told of her entitlement to an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card necessary to access her benefits; and that a worker berated her, invoking ethnic slurs. Had advocates been present they could have assisted Ms. Sanchez in dealing with these problems.
Advocates from MRBW , the organizational plaintiff, help claimants with the application and recertification processes, represent them during meetings with caseworkers, and provide critical information to claimants about their rights to assistance. Welfare agency personnel have directed MRBW advocates to leave the centers on several occasions. The agency has not provided a written statement of this policy beyond a letter from the City's counsel to plaintiffs stating that the agency will grant access to advocates only to provide representation to specific claimants.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent the city from excluding advocates unaccompanied by claimants from the Centers to direct Welfare Centers to allow advocates to provide rights information and representation to welfare claimants.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan and Rebecca Scharf of the Welfare Law Center, 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1205, New York, New York 10001; Laura K. Abel, Kimani Paul-Emile and David S. Udell of The Brennan Center for Justice, 161 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10013, tel. (212) 988-6737; Laura Davis of the New York Legal Assistance Group, 130 East 59th Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York, 10022, tel. (212) 750-0800, ext. 210; and Thomas McGanney of White & Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York New York 10036, tel. (212) 819-8200.
No. CI0299994651 (Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Ohio) (Complaint filed Oct. 26, 2000).
This case, filed as a class action on behalf of current, past, and future applicants for the state-funded Disability Assistance cash benefits, against state and Lucas County welfare officials, alleges that as a result of various illegal practices of the defendants plaintiffs have been denied access to the DA program. The plaintiffs challenge practices such as failing to inform eligible individuals about the program or telling them that the program does not exist; failing to provide or accept applications; failing to provide assistance in obtaining needed medical verification, leading to erroneous denials; failure of the county agency to timely submit full and complete application files to the state agency for an eligibility determination; failure of the county to have an SSI case management program to assist individuals to qualify for SSI/SSA benefits; failure of the state and county agencies to provide hearings required by due process; and failure of the state agency to correctly assess disabilities and to issue eligibility decisions within a reasonable time. Plaintiffs' claims are based on state law and federal due process. They seek class certification and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Jesus R. Salas, David Koeninger, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, 740 Spitzer Bldg., 520 Madison Ave., Toledo, Ohio 43604 , tel. 419 255-0814.
Case No. CI ---- (District Court of Lancaster County, Neb.) (Complaint filed July 31, 2000).
This case, filed as a class action, challenges state regulations that shorten the two-year time limit for cash assistance by beginning the time limited period before signing of a self-sufficiency contract or the completion of the assessment process leading to the self-sufficiency contract. Families allege that as a result of the regulation they are losing months of eligibility for cash assistance and related services and opportunities for economic self-sufficiency.
Plaintiffs claim that the regulations violate the state's welfare statute which requires that the two-year time limit begin when the self-sufficiency contract is signed or when any children born to the family before the initial ten months of assistance reach six months, whichever is later. The state statute also requires a specific process leading up to the signing of each self-sufficiency contract, including a comprehensive assessment that shall be used to develop the contract. The challenged state regulations provide that the two year time limit begin with the earlier of the 1) the month following the month when the contract is signed or 2) 90 days after receipt of the signed application for benefits. In addition, the contract must be signed within 90 days after application.
Plaintiffs include individuals who otherwise have cooperated with welfare requirements, who are being required to sign a contract without completing the comprehensive assessment, are being required to back-date the contract, are being sanctioned or threatened with sanction for refusal to sign the contract under these circumstances, and are having months of aid prior to the signing of the contract count towards the time limit. Some have barriers to work; some seek to have their contracts allow education activities. They claim that they are being denied needed benefits and services, the opportunity to go through the comprehensive assessment process and to have a contract based on such assessment, a denial of job training and educational opportunity as an allowable activity under the contract, and a denial of support services to eliminate barriers to work. They also claim that the illegal counting of months violates federal and state due process requirements and that counting months of eligibility without providing notice and an opportunity for a fair hearing violates federal and state procedural due process. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief and class certification.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Sue Ellen Wall, Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, 941 O St., Suite 105, Lincoln, NE 68508-3625, tel. 402 438-8853; fax 402 438-0623; email: neapplaw.org.
C.A. No. H-00-1118 (S.D.Tex., April 26, 2000) (amended complaint).
In this individual action, four Spanish-speaking Food Stamp applicants, two of whom depend on self-employment income, have challenged the Texas Department of Human Services' (TDHS) policies and practices of 1) failing to provide bilingual services and personnel as contrary to the federal Food Stamp statute, 7 USC 2020(e)(1)(B) and (2)(A) and implementing regulation; and 2) failing to treat self-employment income as required by federal Food Stamp regulations.
The plaintiffs, who do not read or write English, were provided with certification materials in English, without translation to Spanish, and with English-speaking case workers, without Spanish-speaking interpreters. To the best of their ability, applicants completed the application materials and returned them timely to their caseworkers. Food stamps, however, were not provided to applicants. Instead, plaintiffs received written requests from TDHS in English, without Spanish translation, stating that additional information was needed.
In addition to the claim relating to the failure to provide bilingual materials and services, plaintiffs claim violations of the federal food stamp regulation relating to the treatment of self-employment income. They challenge the agency's policies and practices of averaging of self-employment income over a 12-month period if it is derived from hourly work or piecework, requiring verification of self-employment income for a 12-month period where such income was intended to support the household only for the month of receipt, and requiring annualization of self-employment income that has substantially increased or decreased rather than using anticipated income. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Mario Caballero, Gulf Coast Legal Foundation, 1415 Fannin, Houston, Texas 77002; tel. 713-652-0077; fax 713-652-3815; David Kahne Civil Rights and Economic Development Organization, Inc. P.O. Box 66386, Houston, Texas 77266; tel. 713-652-3966; fax 713-652-5773; Mary Beckner 10609 W. Willowist Dr., Houston, Texas 77035; fax 713-729-2625
(San Francisco Superior Ct., Cal.) (Complaint filed Oct. 3, 2000).
Parents of low-income disabled children have filed a lawsuit alleging that California discriminates against disabled children who receive welfare. According to state law, low-income full-time high school students and their families can receive public assistance until they are 19 years old, as long as the students are expected to graduate high school by their 19th birthday. Many disabled students are denied benefits after they turn 18 because their disabilities have delayed their progress, preventing graduation by age 19. The suit alleges that the state's failure to take disability into account in evaluating whether a student will graduate by age 19 violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Editor's note: This report is from the website of the Western Center on Law and Poverty: www.wclp.org.
Plaintiffs' counsel: Paula Gaber (ext. 29), Clare Pastore (ext. 25), Dick Rothschild (ext. 24), Western Center on Law and Poverty, Los Angeles, CA; tel. 213-487-7211; Ann Menasche, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, tel. 619-471-2630; Brian Lawlor, tel. 916-551-2150, Kan Tung, tel. 707-462-4117, Legal Services of Northern California.
No. 309526, (California Super. Ct. San Francisco Co.) (complaint filed April 2, 2000).
Plaintiffs in this case are parents entitled to child care as current or former recipients of CalWORKS benefits, and a child care provider who participates in the California Department of Education child care program, which is funded in part by Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Defendants are the California Department of Education (CDE), the CCDF lead agency and administrator of part of the program; and the Chief Executive Officer of CDE.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants are violating the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by using rules and guidelines for the program that have not been promulgated in the manner required by the California APA. They claim that CDE has issued management bulletins, letters and terms and conditions of contracts with child care providers that contain rules of general application that function as regulations, though they were not subject to public notice and comment process required by the California APA and are not readily available to the public. CDE has child care regulations that it claims apply to the CalWORKS child care program, but they were promulgated 10 years before the CalWORKS child care program existed, and are inconsistent in many respects with to the CalWORKS child care statutes. Many of the management bulletins issued by the defendants are an attempt to address these conflicts. Thus plaintiffs argue that the older regulations are not CalWORKS child care regulations.
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction and peremptory writ of mandate prohibiting CDE from using rules and policies that do not conform to the California APA; a declaration that the use of these rules violates the APA; costs and attorneys' fees; and an order requiring CDE to issue child care regulations for the CalWORKS program.
Plaintiffs' initial complaint also sought an order requiring CDE to promulgate regulations for the CalWORKS child care program; this claim was dismissed on a demurrer. After plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, defendants filed a demurrer on the remaining claim. This motion was denied.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Sujatha Branch, Child Care Law Center,973 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415-495-5498); Emma Leheny, Richard Rothschild, Western Center on Poverty and Law, 3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208, Los Angeles, CA 90010(213-487-7211); and Luz Buitrago, Center on Poverty Law & Economic Opportunity, 449 15th Street, Suite 301, Oakland, CA 94612 (510-891-9794).
No. 00-3014F (Superior Court, Suffolk, Mass.) (Complaint and memo in support of preliminary injunction, July 2000).
This case, filed as a class action, challenges the denial of Massachusetts Supplemental Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (STAFDC) to legal immigrants who have resided in Massachusetts for fewer than six months. STAFDC is a state-funded program that provides cash assistance to immigrant families and pregnant women who are disqualified from federally-funded benefits under the 1996 welfare law. Plaintiffs claim that the durational residency requirements violates the Equal Protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, sec. 2, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and 8 U.S.C. 1624 which limits state authority to restrict benefits to non-citizens.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Deborah Harris, Iris Gomez, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, 99 Chauncey Street Ste 500, Boston, MA 02111, tel. 617-357-0700, e-mail: dharris@gbls.org; Sarah Levy, Greater Boston Legal Services, 197 Friend Street, Boston, MA 02114, tel. 617-371-1270; James Breslauer, Neighborhood Legal Services, 170 Common Street, Ste. 300, Lawrence, MA 01840, tel. 978-686-6900, e-mail: bres@gbls.org.
, _______ (Sacramento County, CA, complaint filed Aug. 4, 2000).
This lawsuit challenges DSS' requirement that adult family members in a household who are not applicants for or recipients of CalWORKs or Food Stamps be finger imaged and photo imaged as a condition precedent for the receipt of CalWORKs or Food Stamps by eligible family members. Petitioners have also challenged DSS' regulations which sanction the entire CalWORKs assistance unit or Food Stamps household when adults who are ineligible for these benefits fail or refuse to be fingerprint imaged and photo imaged. Additionally, petitioners generally challenge the photo imaging requirements because Welfare and Institutions Code
§ 10803 does not authorize photographing as a condition of eligibility for either CalWORKs or Food Stamps.
This lawsuit has been filed as a peitition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunction relief. Besides Welfare and Institutions Code § 10830, petitioners also base their claims on Welfare and Institutions Code § 10500 and Government Code § 11342.2 et seq. (reprinted with permission from September 2000 Western Center on Law and Poverty report).
Case No. 3:00CV7524 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, August 24, 2000),
Two Limited English Proficient (LEP) food stamp recipients have filed a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Lucas County Department of Job and Family Services and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) for violating the federal statutory and regulatory rights of low-income LEP persons whose primary language is Spanish to fairly and equally participate in the food stamp program. The plaintiffs assert that the notices, applications and correspondence used by ODJFS and LCDJFS are almost exclusively in English, and that LCDJFS has failed to provide them with an interpreter when needed.
Plaintiffs' representatives: Victor Goode, Mark Heller, David Koeninger, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, 520 Madison Ave., Ste. 740, 740 Spitzer Bldg., Toledo, OH 43604, tel. 419-255-0814, fax: 419-259-2880.
Reprinted from OSLSA Reports, Vol. 22, No. 6, October/November 2000.
Case No. C2-00-1-31 (United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, October 2, 2000).
Two type-B family day care licensees have filed a class action complaint against Jacqueline Romer-Sensky, the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS), the Scioto County Department of Job and Family Services (SCDJFS), the SCDJFS director, and the social worker in the employ of SCDJFS. The complaint alleges that the defendants revoked the plaintiffs' day care licenses (for Type B family day care which permits the provision of day care services in the home) without notice, the opportunity of a hearing, or meaningful post-deprivation proceedings as required by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. In both cases, certain incidents involving a child for whom the plaintiffs were responsible resulted in an immediate revocation of the plaintiffs' licenses, without providing notice or an opportunity for a hearing. In fact, one of the plaintiffs learned of the revocation through her daughter, who had an appointment with SCDJFS for another matter.
Plaintiffs' representatives: Kimberley Skaggs and Gary M. Smith, Equal Justice Foundation, 520 Madison Ave., Ste. 740, 740 Spitzer Bldg., Toledo, OH 43604, tel. 419-255-0814, fax: 419-259-2880.
Reprinted from OSLSA Reports, Vol. 22, No. 6, October/November 2000.
(Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, August 28, 2000).
The administrative hearing examiner reversed the decision of the hearing officer and found that the agency failed to: (1) assist the appellant in providing child care services; and (2) assist the appellant in amending her self-sufficiency plan after becoming aware that she had been recently assaulted by her husband. The agency admitted at the state hearing that it did not assist her in obtaining child care services and did not assist her as a victim of domestic violence. The appellant informed the agency at the time of her assessment that she had five children for whom she needed child care. The agency admitted it was aware that no child care was available in the area. The administrative hearing examiner found that the appellant had good cause for noncompliance and that the sanction should be withdrawn. R.C. § 5107.66 requires that the agency provide OWF participants with necessary support services, including publicly funded child day care, so that they can fulfill their work assignments. Additionally, R.C. § 5107.16(B)(1)(b) states that failure of the agency to provide for the assistance group to receive support services which the agency determines to be necessary under R.C. § 5107.66 constitutes good cause for nonparticipation in a work activity. The administrative hearing examiner also found that the agency failed to amend the appellant's self-sufficiency contract and plan after becoming aware her circumstances had significantly changed due to the domestic violence against her.
Appellant's representatives: Amy Cleary and Karen Walton, Southeastern Ohio Legal Services-New Philadelphia.
The hearing officer held that the appellant's child care application should be approved because although the appellant's spouse resided in the appellant's home, he was physically unable to care for the appellant's children. The appellant had sought child care services for her three children, including one receiving treatment for Attention Deficit Disorder, while she worked eight hours daily, five days weekly. The agency had denied her application for child care services based on O.A.C. § 5101:2-16-35(Q), which states that the agency may not provide child care services to an eligible family when a caretaker parent is available in the home and can provide appropriate care for the children, unless the family provides written verification from a doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist or public children's services agency that the caretaker parent cannot provide appropriate care for the children. In this case, the appellant's husband received SSI benefits due to having suffered a stroke. The agency attempted to obtain written verification of the husband's inability to care for the children for his doctor, but his doctor would not comment on the husband's ability to provide child care. As a result, the hearing officer independently ruled that the evidence provided at the hearing of the husband's disability and the needs of caring for the children was sufficient to conclude that the husband could not provide child care for the appellant's children while she was at work.
Appellant's representative: David Gorman, Southeastern Ohio Legal Services-Steubenville.
The two items above were reprinted from OSLSA Reports, Vol. 22, No. 6, October/November 2000.
Nos. 99-603 and 99-960 (U.S. Supreme Court).
Briefs have been submitted to and oral arguments heard by the United States Supreme Court with regard to its review of the decision by the Second Circuit holding unconstitutional Congress' "welfare reform" restriction. Under this provision, federally-funded legal services programs cannot provide representation that seeks "to amend or otherwise challenge existing law...." An amicus curiae brief was filed by the New York State Bar Association, other bar associations, the Welfare Law Center, and many other organizations. For a report of the Second Circuit decision see Welfare Bulletin, January 1999.