NY HR Workfare Sanction Invalid

Hestag v. Hammons, Index No. 403426/96-001 (N.Y. Supreme Court, Nov. 14, 1996).

The court has ruled for plaintiff in this challenge to an individual fair hearing decision which upheld a sanction for failure to cooperate with a Home Relief work program. Petitioner claimed that she should not be sanctioned because the welfare agency failed to make any effort to accommodate her school schedule in setting her work hours. The court held that the imposition of a sanction was contrary to New York statute and regulations which mandate that work assignments not "interfere" with participants' educational programs. The defendant is appealing. CH # pending.

Plaintiff's attorneys: Bill Jaffe, of the Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Neighborhood Office, tel. (718) 722-3100. Co-counsel are Christopher Lamb of The Welfare Law Center and Davis Polk & Wardwell.
 
 
 

NYC Workfare Challenged

Brukhman v. Hammons, Index No._____ (Supreme Court N.Y. Cty., filed Dec. 23, 1996).

This case, filed as a class action by AFDC and Home Relief recipients, challenges the city's policy and practice of requiring recipients to work off their grants at a rate less than or equal to the minimum wage, instead of at a rate of pay equal to that paid to regular employees doing the same or similar work. Plaintiffs claim that this policy is contrary to the New York State Constitution (Article I, section 17), state statute, and implementing regulations, and to federal and state due process and equal protection requirements. They also claim that the state welfare commissioner is violating state statute and federal and state constitutional requirements in failing to supervise the city defendant. CH # pending.

Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan, The Welfare Law Center; The Legal Aid Society; and the National Employment Law Project.
 

NY Workfare Sanction Reversed

F. H. #2560197J (NY Dept. of Social Services, Dec. 31, 1996).

This amended decision reverses the agency's decision to impose a six-month sanction on an AFDC recipient who failed to appear for her workfare assignment and who consequently was found to have failed to comply with JOBS without good cause. Plaintiff's attorney sought amendment of the ALJ decision on the grounds that the ALJ failed to consider and apply the decision of the New York Appellate Division, Fourth Dept. in Church v. Wing. That decision held that the agency must determine the appropriate pay rate for the assigned job (as required by state law) before assigning a participant to a work site, rather than assume that the proper rate is the state or federal minimum wage. The amended decision recognizes that Church applies to this case and rejects the ALJ's view that the prevailing wage issue is not relevant if the recipient did not fulfill her work obligation, even considering the correct wage rate.
CH # pending.

Plaintiff's attorney: Terrence Whelan, Legal Services of Central New York, 44 Public Square, Watertown, NY 13601, tel. 315-788-2072; fax 315-785-9118.