Civ. Act. No. 94-30220-MAP (D. Mass., Sept. 5, 1995).
A consent decree provides for procedures to prevent AFDC and medicaid beneficiaries from being wrongfully terminated if a computer match suggests they have an open case in another state. The agency will first compare information in its own case file (including a hard copy with the social security number) against the computer report, and then schedule an appointment and reschedule it if requested. At the meeting, the individual will be asked to verify that there is no open case or to sign a form requesting the other state to close any case that might be open, and if the individual agrees Massachusetts will take no action in the case. Failure to attend the meeting can lead to termination, unless the individual signs the letter or provides verification of non-receipt from the other state before the date of termination. (Counsel advises that if the state wishes to commence a fraud prosecution, it will have the burden of proof and will have to develop documentation of duplicate receipt of benefits.) CH # 50,301.
No. 94-2629 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 1996).
The 11th Circuit has a reversed a District Court decision that had held that Florida violated 42 U.S.C. .602(g) when it denied child care benefits to AFDC recipients who were voluntary participants in JOBS. The court based its decision on language in .602(a)(19) that it said requires states to permit AFDC recipients to voluntarily participate in JOBS activities only insofar as state resources permit and on cross-referencing to .602(a)(19) in .602(g). According to the court, this limitation on the states' obligation to voluntary JOBS participants makes .602(g) non-binding with respect to them and thus deprives them of a private right of action to enforce it under 42 U.S.C. .1983. CH # 48,428.
Civil Action No. 2:95-0453 (S.D. W.V. Amended Complaint 1995).
This is a federal class action suit alleging that West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources and its officials denied eligible recipients of AFDC meaningful access to basic skills training under the JOBS training program in violation of plaintiffs' federal and state rights. The complaint alleges that the basic skills training program is inadequate and that the teacher in charge of the course implicitly and expressly stated that she would not help her students obtain the GED. The complaint further alleges that the teacher of the course was frequently absent from class while "rarely" providing a substitute. In addition, the complaint alleges that when the teacher was present, she used class time to engage in personal activities. Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that the teacher publicly humiliated students, claiming that several of the students had head lice. The plaintiffs also allege that the teacher prevented eligible students from sitting for the GED examination. The plaintiffs in this suit brought this matter to the attention of state agency officials, who told them that their public assistance benefits would be terminated if they persisted in pursuing their complaints. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and damages. The plaintiffs seek to have the defendants enjoined from refusing to provide the following: meaningful assessment of educational and support services necessary to plaintiffs, the development of an "employability plan", information regarding employment and educational opportunities, an effective job training program and an adequate and fair hearing procedure. CH # pending.