Settlement in NY Food Stamp Language Access Case
Ramirez v. Giuliani, 99 Civ. 9287 (BSJ) (Oct. 2001) (Stipulation and Order of Settlement).The parties have entered into a settlement of this case which asserted that the New York City welfare agency denies non-English speaking individuals meaningful access to the Food Stamp Program in violation of the Food Stamp Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, federal and state regulations and the United States Constitution. The detailed agreement includes the following terms. A class is certified consisting of non-English speaking current, past, and future Food applicants, and current and future recipients whose primary language is either Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Spanish or another language into which the defendant is required to translate forms as provided in the settlement. The defendant will maintain data on the primary language of participants and will survey the translation needs of recipients by sending a notice (in at least seventeen languages) asking recipients to identify their primary language. The defendant will make reasonable efforts to provide qualified bilingual staff at each agency office which has 100 or more individuals who speak the same language. There are additional provisions designed to provide access to language services where the number of recipients speaking a given language is less than 100, including an option for recipients to transfer to an office offering language assistance in their language. The defendant will provide free interpreter services (in person or by phone) to those that request such assistance or who appear to need it. When qualified bilingual staff are not available the defendant will use other appropriate sources. Applicants and recipients will be given notice of the availability of interpreter services. The defendant will translate a range of forms into Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic and will translate materials into additional languages spoken by 100 or more cases served by offices in any borough. Materials will be translated into at least 6 languages and up to 9. A language liaison at each office will be responsible for assuring that appropriate language assistance is provided to anyone who needs it. Notices of such services will be posted in agency offices. There are detailed provisions for monitoring, and training, and a dispute resolution mechanism.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Constance P. Carden, Randal S. Jeffrey, Andrew Friedman, New York Legal Assistance Group, 130 East 59th Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10022, Tel. (212) 750_0800, Ext. 123; Foster S. Maer, Sara E. Rios, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, 99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10013, Tel. (212) 219_3360; Steven L. Jenkins, Anusuya Chatterjee, Make the Road by Walking, 301 Grove Street, Brooklyn, New York 12237, Tel. (718) 418_7690.
NE Family Cap Rule Does Not Apply To Children of Mothers With Disabilities
Mason v. State of Nebraska, Case No. CI 00_3389 (District Court, Lancaster Cy., Nebraska)(Oct. 26, 2001).
The court has ruled for the plaintiffs in this class action challenge to the application of the family cap rule to children whose mothers are unable to work because of disability. Plaintiffs claimed that the family cap statute which denies additional benefits for a child born to the recipient family after the initial ten months of "participation" is limited to those who are able to work and participate in self-sufficiency activities set out in the self-sufficiency contract. Based on its examination of the legislative history the court concludes that the state legislature only intended the family cap rule to apply to those who could enter into a self-sufficiency contract and since those with disabilities are not required to enter into self-sufficiency contracts, the family cap does not apply to their unit. For more information visit www.neappleseed.org.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Milo Mumgaard, Sue Ellen Wall, Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, 942 O Street, Suite 105, Lincoln, NE 68508, tel.402 438_8853; Email: neapplaw@aol.com; Susan Koenig, 1266 South 13th St., Omaha, NE 68108.
Settlement in CA Case Seeking Access to Welfare Offices
Supportive Parents Information Network, Inc. v. County of San Diego et. al, Case No 01 CV 0007 J (July 18, 2001) (Stipulation).The parties have settled this case which was brought when the county welfare agency prohibited the plaintiff organization from distributing literature and speaking with welfare applicants at two welfare offices. According to a report from plaintiffs' counsel, SPIN staff and volunteers were denied access to the agency, prevented from accompanying clients to agency appointments, harassed during legal picketing, and barred from putting literature in display racks. Other organizations were allowed to display literature and counsel applicants. The plaintiff, an organization that assists low-income families through education and advocacy, alleged a violation of the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The settlement acknowledges the rights of clients to have an advisor of their choice who can participate in the client's meetings with agency staff, the agency's right to impose reasonable restrictions on the number of advisors greater than two and to limit participation if the advisor is disruptive. It also acknowledges the public's right to physical access to agency offices for lawful activity related to the agency's services, indicates that literature display racks are available on a first-come, first-served basis, and recognizes the public's right to assemble and engage in expressive activity to the extent that it does not materially disrupt agency business or put employees or members of the public at risk of harm. The agency agrees to train its staff on these matters. The settlement also provides for dispute resolution procedures if the plaintiff believes the agency violates the agreement.
Plaintiff's attorneys: Jordan C. Budd, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, P.O. Box 87131, San Diego, CA 92138, tel. 619 232-2121; Guylyn R. Cummins, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP.
San Diego County TANF Contracts Invalidated
Giles v. Horn, Case No. GIC 733081 (Superior Court, San Diego County, CA) (Judgment, entered Oct. 24, 2000).This case challenged contracts for CalWORKs case management services entered into between San Diego County and private contractors. The County Charter provides that before entering into a contract with a private vendor, the County must determine that the services can be provided more economically and efficiently by the independent contractor than by county employees. A subsequent policy created certain exceptions, but the court found that to the extent it attempted to modify the Charter, it was of no effect. Even if the policy were valid, based on the evidence submitted, the exceptions did not apply to the CalWORKs case management contracts. In addition, state statute bars the wholesale contracting out of case management of the welfare system to independent contractors. The court concluded that the County violated Charter requirements and abused its discretion in contracting out the services. It ordered issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering defendants to terminate the contracts and enjoined expenditures of public funds pursuant to the contracts. The defendant has reportedly filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs' Attorney: Tom Tosdal, Tosdal, Levine, Smith & Steiner, San Diego, CA, tel. 619 239-7200.
Settlement in CA Case Challenging Counting of Child Support Paid for Certain Minor Parents
Dominika S. v. Saenz, Case No. 317039 (Superior Ct., San Francisco County, Cal.) (Stipulated Judgment, ___ 2001).The parties have entered into a stipulated judgment providing for class certification and a permanent injunction (effective Feb. 1, 2001) barring the defendant "from reducing or denying CalWORKs benefits to the children of minor parents as follows: In the case of a minor parent who resides with his or her parent(s), respondents shall not consider child support payments made on behalf of the minor parent intended to provide for the needs of the minor parent in determining the CalWORKs eligibility and grant amount for the minor parent's child under the provisions of [state law].” The stipulated judgement also provides, among other things, for retroactive relief to class members identified during a ninety day period, that the corrective underpayments will not be treated as income in the month of receipt or resources in the month of receipt or following month, that class members can place the retroactive benefits up to the statutory amount into a restricted account pursuant to state, and that defendant will provide relevant policy materials to plaintiffs' counsel for comment before finalization.
Plaintiffs' counsel: 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.
NYC TANF Recipient Files Title VII Lawsuit Claiming Sexual Harassment by Workfare Supervisor
Norma C. v. City of New York, (S.D. N.Y. complaint filed October 29, 2001).This individual action, brought by a New York City TANF recipient against the New York City welfare commissioner and her workfare supervisor, seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state anti-discrimination laws resulting from repeated sexual harassment by her workfare supervisor. The City has moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act exempts TANF work activities from coverage under Title VII and, in any event, workfare work is not covered employment under Title VII.
This filing builds upon a complaint previously filed with the EEOC. As a result of the administrative complaint, the EEOC issued guidelines to agencies on how to avoid sexual harassment in workfare programs, many of which have no grievance procedures. And, in September 1999, the EEOC announced that it found reasonable cause to commence enforcement proceedings in this and five other cases.
Plaintiff's attorneys: Marc Cohan (cohan@welfarelaw.org) and Anne H. Pearson, Welfare Law Center; Yolanda Wu and Liz Gonchar-Hempstead, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, 395 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, tel. 212-925-6635.
Nebraska TANF Recipients Challenge Policies Restricting College Study as Work Activity
Walters v. State of Nebraska, Case No. CI 01__ (District Court, Lancaster County, Neb.) (Complaint filed Sept. 7, 2001).This case, filed, as a class action, challenges policies of the state welfare agency that restrict the rights of class members to have their self-sufficiency contracts include their pursuit of a four year college program as their TANF work activity. State law permits participants to participate in post-secondary education for up to 24 months. The state agency's unwritten policy is that the degree must be earned in two years and that it will not approve education programs that cannot be completed in that time. The state agency has another unwritten policy of not approving college study if the participant has a marketable job skill. Plaintiffs challenge these policies as contrary to the state's welfare statute and the state Administrative Procedure Act. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the agency to negotiate with and approve self-sufficiency contracts allowing class members to pursue four-year college programs to the extent permitted by the statute.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Milo Mumgaard and Sue Ellen Wall, Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, 942 O Street, Suite 105, Lincoln, NE 68508, tel.402 438_8853; Email: neapplaw@aol.com; Susan Koenig, 1266 South 13th St., Omaha, NE 68108.
Ohio County Claims State Misuses TANF Funds
The Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners v. The State of Ohio, Case No. ----, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Complaint).This complaint alleges that the state has illegally diverted millions of federal TANF dollars in an effort to balance the state budget. Ohio counties have a substantial role in TANF administration and have entered into partnership agreements with the state. The plaintiff claims that the state has not distributed TANF funds to the county to enhance social services delivery as called for by the agreement and as provided in the state TANF plan and instead has diverted substantial TANF funds to replace existing state funding, thereby freeing up state general revenue money for use in non-TANF programs. The plaintiffs claim that this practice harms the county and needy citizens who are the intended beneficiaries of the partnership agreement. The plaintiff alleges a breach of the partnership agreement and of defendant's fiduciary obligations to 1) comply with federal and state law in allocating TANF funds; and 2) create an environment to enhance and improve TANF programs. They also claim a violation of state statute requiring the state to distribute federal TANF funds to counties or to use the funds consistent with Title IV-A of the Social Security Act.