Reynolds v. Giuliani, No. 98 Civ. 8877 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 1999)(Memorandum and Order).
The court has granted broad preliminary relief in this case which claims that New York City systematically discourages and deters needy individuals from applying for Food Stamps, Medicaid, and cash assistance as a result of its ongoing conversion of Income Support Centers to Job Centers. Job Centers are a key element in the Mayor's welfare overhaul. Plaintiffs claim that in furtherance of the Mayor's goal of diverting people from public assistance, Job Center staff routinely mislead prospective applicants, deny the right to apply during the first visit, pressure them into withdrawing applications, improperly deny Food Stamps and Medicaid when cash aid is denied, and fail to provide notice and hearing rights. They assert claims based on federal Food Stamp and Medicaid laws and regulations, including the right to apply without delay and receive prompt determinations, to receive expedited Food Stamps and emergency Medicaid, to have Food Stamps and Medicaid eligibility determined separately from cash aid; state law regarding the right to apply for cash aid and receive prompt determinations; and due process. Following its December 16th order requiring the City to provide relief to the named plaintiffs, the court held a three day hearing during which it received extensive testimony and documentary evidence. The 49-page opinion concluded that as a result of the conversions fewer applicants are approved for benefits. The court noted high rates of prospective applicants turned away without filing applications, a decline in the number of emergency cash grants, and a correlation between conversion of Income Support Centers to Job Centers and a decline in the number of applicants who receive expedited Food Stamps. The court also cited evidence that individuals were referred to food pantries instead of provided expedited benefits, that training materials do not refer to the procedures for processing emergency or expedited benefits, that City records reveal prospective applicants being turned away inappropriately (e.g., because a spouse was not present), that individuals who arrive later in the day are told to return another day regardless of their emergency needs, and that case workers deny the entire case for missed work-related requirements without making separate Food Stamp and Medicaid eligibility determinations. The court also found evidence that workers orally deny applications without providing written notice of the denial and hearing rights. The court rejected the City's argument that the problems were isolated incidents and that they were taking steps to address the problems, concluding that any efforts to address the problems were ad hoc and taken just before the hearing. It also found that plaintiffs had statutory and due process claims under 42 U.S.C. .1983. The injunction bars the City from continuing the conversion to Job Centers until there has been a hearing on a corrective action plan, requires the City to comply with the law, and continues a previously ordered informal intervention process to allow individual emergency cases to be addressed. Papers and decision are available on Welfare Law Center's website: www.welfarelaw.org.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan and Rebecca Scharf, Welfare Law Center, 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1205, New York, NY 10001-6708, tel. 212-633-6967, fax 212-633-6371, email cohan@ welfarelaw.org or scharf@ welfarelaw.org; Christopher D. Lamb, Hwan-Hui Helen Lee, Anne K. Callagy, et al., Legal Aid Society, Civil Division, New York City; Constance P. Carden and Randal S. Jeffrey, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York City; and Kenneth Rosenfeld, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp., New York City.
Alvarino v. Wing, Index No. 402791/98 (N.Y.Sup. Ct., N.Y.Cty., Dec. 21, 1998)
This case challenges the New York State Food Assistance Plan which denies Food Stamps to legal immigrants for reasons unrelated to need, including age (18-59); residence (residing in county that does not participate in the plan); non-disability; and inability to apply for U.S. citizenship. Plaintiffs assert claims based on Article XVII, Sec. 1 of the New York State Constitution, which requires the State to provide for the needy, and the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions. In August 1998, the court granted temporary relied for the named plaintiffs. The court has now denied plaintiffs' motion for class action and for injunctive relief, ruling that the state program does not violate equal protection under the lenient rational basis test. The court did not address plaintiffs' claims based on Article XVII. Plaintiffs are appealing.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Scott Rosenberg and Helen Lee, The Legal Aid Society, Civil Appeals and Law Reform Unit, 90 Church Street, New York, NY 10007; Marc Cohan and Rebecca Scharf, Welfare Law Center; Sister Mary Ellen Burns, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp., 76 Wadsworth Avenue, New York, NY 10033; Constance Carden and Michael Scherz, New York Legal Assistance Group, 130 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022; Chris Bowes, Center for Disability Advocacy Rights, Inc., 841 Broadway, Suite 605, New York, NY 10003; Barbara Weiner, Greater Upstate Law Project, 80 St. Paul St., Suite 660, Rochestor, NY 14604-1350.
Poladyn v. Davis, Case No. 98CS02862 (Cal. Superior Ct., Sacramento Cy.)(Preliminary Injunction Order, Dec. 28, 1998)(Petition for Writ of Mandate, Oct. 21, 1998).
The court has granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the county welfare agency from implementing its Eligibility Verification Pilot Project. According to petitioner, under the Pilot Program, the county requires a home visit for certain welfare applicants purportedly to verify eligibility for assistance. Applicants are not told what facts need to be verified, and if they refuse a home visit, their application is denied for failure to cooperate. There is no set date or time for the visits, which generally occur within two days of application. The home visit includes an interview of the applicant as well as a search which entails opening doors, closets, cupboards, and containers. Agency criminal fraud investigators are among those who conduct the home visits. The Pilot initially applied in welfare offices in two areas of the county. Petitioner claims that the Pilot violates state law requirements that permit home visits only when eligibility cannot be established through available documentation, the right to privacy under the state constitution, the federal Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and federal due process requirements. Petitioner's attorneys: Jennifer Horne and Gary Smith, Legal Services of No. California, 515 12th St., Sacramento, CA 958114, tel. (916) 551-2150; Stephen Goldberg, Bess Brewer, No. California Lawyers for Civil Justice, Sacramento; Grace Galligher, California Coalition of Welfare Rights Orgs., Sacramento, CA.
V. R. v. Joan E. Ohl, Civ. Act. No. 3-98-CV-1176 (S D. W. Va., Feb. 3, 1999).
The Court has granted a preliminary injunction against counting a child's SSI benefits in determining eligibility for TANF benefits. While finding the question novel and difficult, the Court holds that counting SSI "presents an obstacle to fulfillment of Congress' requirement that representative payees use SSI benefits only for the use and benefit of the child beneficiary." Therefore the SSI benefit cannot be assumed available to meet the needs of other siblings or of the parent caretaker. The Court acknowledged that in the AFDC statute there was a prohibition against counting SSI benefits, but rejected the State's argument that the absence of a similar provision in the TANF portion of the Personal Responsibility Act meant that states were free to count the benefit. Rather, the Court "seriously doubts that Congress intended to present household ... with the 'unappetizing choice' of choosing to receive" either SSI or TANF. The Court deferred addressing the treatment of adult SSI benefits received by the caretaker relative. Before reaching the preliminary injunction issue, the court first concluded that (1) the SSI statute provided a cause of action under . 1983 since it creates enforceable rights, (2) there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies, and (3) class action status would be granted only for the class consisting of families where the child receives SSI, but not where the adult receives SSI.
Counsel for plaintiffs: James Sugarman, Dan Hedges, Mountain State Justice, Inc., 922 Quarrier Street, Charleston WV 25301, 304-344-3144, fax 304-344-3145.
Weston v. Hammons, Case No. 99CV0412 (CO Dist. Ct., Denver, Jan. 21, 1999) (complaint).
This case, filed as a class action against Denver and Adams County welfare officials and the state welfare director, challenges the adequacy of state-generated notices sent to individuals subject to sanction under the state's welfare program, the Colorado Works Program. Plaintiffs are individuals who have been sanctioned after receiving inadequate notices, which include among its defects language that the sanction is being imposed because "you have failed to cooperate with the works requirement, child support requirement or immunization requirement of the Colorado Works Program." They claim that the counties have used the inadequate notices despite decisions by state administrative law judges finding the notices legally inadequate, and various state memos acknowledging .that the logic of these hearing decisions is applicable to other cases in which the families received the same notice. The plaintiffs claim that the county defendants have violated state statutory and regulatory requirements for adequate notice and state and federal due process requirements. They also claim that the state defendant has violated its state statutory duty to supervise and oversee county administration of the Colorado Works Program. Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment as to the inadequacy of the notices; injunctive relief barring sanctions based on the inadequate notices, requiring the county defendants to identify and notify those who have been unlawfully terminated of their rights to reinstatement, requiring the counties to expunge any sanctions resulting from such inadequate notices from the records.of individuals and to make restitution of unlawfully withheld benefits; and requiring the state defendant to supervise the county defendants.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Thomas Nichols, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP; Natalie Hanlon-Leh, Steven Zansberg and Christopher Beall, Faegre & Benson, LLP; Barbara Blumenthal, McKenna & Cuneo, LLP; Kimberley Ghiselli, Silver & Deboskey. For additional information contact Maureen Farrell, Colorado Center on Law and Poverty: 623 Fox St., #205, Denver, CO 80204, tel. 303 573-5669