The appellate court has unanimously affirmed the judgment of the lower
court reported at
170 Misc. 2d 554 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Monroe Cty. 1996) which enjoined on
a statewide basis the enforcement of a New York statute limiting home Relief
benefits for new residents for the first six months of their New York residency
to the amount payable in their previous state of residence. The lower court's
decision is based on Article 17 of the New York State Constitution, which
mandates aid to the needy, and the federal constitutional right to travel.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Chris Lamb, Welfare Law Center; Susan Silverstein
and Bryan
Hetherington, Public Interest Law Office of Rochester, 80 St. Paul
St., Suite 700, Rochester, NY 14604, tel. (716) 454-4060; fax (716) 454-4019;
Susan Antos, Greater Upstate Law Project, 119 Washington St., Albany, NY,
tel. (518) 462-6831; fax (518 462-6687.
The court has granted a preliminary injunction directing the Pennsylvania
Department of
Public Welfare (PDPW) to continue to pay child and spousal support
"pass-through" payments of $50 to families receiving welfare, and to continue
not to deduct this payment from the families' benefits. This injunction
continues the policy which was required by federal law until Oct. 1, 1996.
Plaintiffs brought this suit in response to the PDPW's announced termination
of the policy. They claim that Pennsylvania state law mandates the continuation
of the "pass-through" policy, and alternately that the new policy is invalid
because of failure to follow rulemaking requirements. The court directed
that there not be an automatic stay of its or der pending appeal. Plaintiffs'
attorney reports that the state Supreme Court rejected the state agency
request to reinstate the automatic stay, and that checks have gone out
to class members.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Amy E. Hirsch, Community Legal Services, Inc.
Law Center North
Central, 3638 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19140; tel. 215-928-9801;
Sue Frietsche, Women's Law Project, tel. 215-298-9801; Dechert Price &
Rhoads; and Seth Kreimer, Esq.
This action began in March 1997 as an Article 78
proceeding to compel New York City
to comply with a September 1996 fair hearing decision for the petitioners
and to require the State to enforce the decision. Other individuals subsequently
sought to intervene and to convert the matter to a class action for declaratory
and injunctive relief. They asked the court to require the defendants to
comply with state law requiring that fair hearings be issued and implemented
within 90 days after a hearing is requested. The court has issued a preliminary
injunction requiring the City to provide assistance to the plaintiffs and
intervenors within 20 days of its decision. It left open the question of
class certification.
The City's failure to comply with fair hearing decisions
is a serious problem. In the
Mayor's most recent Management Report, the City admits that it complies
with the time periods allowed by state law in only 61% of the cases.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan of the Welfare Law Center; Lincoln
Square Legal Services at Fordham Law School; Northern Manhattan Improvement
Corp.; the Legal Aid Society; and Dewey Ballantine.
In a decision that may well have an effect on private
companies that take over welfare
administration, the United State Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that prison
guards who are employees of a private prison management firm do not have
qualified immunity from § 1983 lawsuits. The case was brought by a
prisoner who asserted a constitutional tort claim for physical injuries
caused by the guards.
The Court concluded that there is no historical
tradition of immunity for private prison
guards and that the purposes behind immunity - allowing government
officials to perform their duties vigorously and not deterring talented
individuals from government service - do not support immunity in this situation.
As to the purpose of assuring that officials will not be hesitant to perform
their duties, the Court noted that private employees are in a different
situation than government employees. Marketplace competition means that
companies "whose guards are too aggressive will face damages that raise
costs, thereby threatening its replacement, but also that a firm whose
guards are too timid will face threats of replacement by other firms [with
a better record]." The need to attract people to government service is
satisfied through privatization which has comprehensive insurance requirements
that offer employee indemnification and through private companies' freedom
from civil service requirements which allows it to offer attractive compensation.
Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented.
This case, filed as a class action on behalf of New York City workfare
workers assigned
to clean streets and remove debris for the Sanitation and Transportation
Departments, challenges the city's failure to provide access to toilets,
water for drinking and washing, adequate protective equipment, and necessary
training and supervision. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
work for hours without access to toilets or drinking water and that they
have had to clean up dead animals, syringes, needles, medical wastes, used
condoms and feces with their hands. Plaintiffs also include ACORN
and Community Voices Heard, two groups that are organizing workfare workers.
Plaintiffs claim that the defendants are violating provisions of the state
Social Services and Labor Laws and OSHA standards made applicable pursuant
to state Labor Law; that defendants are violating the due process clauses
of the state and federal Constitutions in failing to provide plaintiffs
with notice of their rights to claim work related allowances and worker
protections under state law; and that in failing to give workfare workers
the same protections that city workers receive the defendants violate the
equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitution and federal
Food Stamp regulations.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan, Welfare Law Center; James Williams
and Karen Yau, Nat'l. Employment Law Project, 55 John St., New York, NY
10038, tel. (212) 285-3085; Constance Carden, Matthew Schneider, New York
Legal Assistance Group, 130 E. 59th St., New York, NY 10022, tel. (212)
750-0800.
This case was last reported in the August 1996 Welfare Bulletin. Plaintiffs
seek summary
judgment motion in this challenge to the state's requirement that a
parent provide the full first and last name of a child's father or any
potential fathers in order for the child and parent to receive AFDC. After
the court's June 1996 granting of a preliminary injunction based on plaintiffs'
federal statutory and regulatory claims, the defendants obtained a waiver
of federal requirements. As required by HHS, they modified their policy
to allow an exception to the absolute identification requirement in cases
where 1) the mother lacks the mental capacity to provide the information;
or 2) the child was conceived as a result of an undocumented rape and the
mother does not know the father's identify. Plaintiffs now seek summary
judgment on their claims 1) that the policy discriminates against nonmarital
children in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
and 2) that the policy in effect before the federal waivers violated federal
statutory and regulatory requirements. The June 1996 decision is reported
at 168 F.R.D. 28 (W.D.Va. 1996).
Plaintiffs' attorney: Steven Myers, Virginia Poverty Law Center, 201
W. Broad St., Suite 302, Richmond, VA 23220, tel. (804) 782-9430; fax (804)649-3746.
This case, filed as a class action, challenges the state's policy of
denying an AFDC increase to most children born more than 10 months after
a family is authorized to receive AFDC. The state policy provides for a
voucher in the amount of one-half of the grant increase tthat would otherwise
be paid for the child. The state's policy was adopted pursuant to federal
waivers, and the state has elected to continue the waivers, thereby
subjecting some families to the policy (the treatment group) and excluding
some from the operation of the policy (the control group). Plaintiffs claim
that the policy violates the equal protection clause of the United States
Constitution and Article 1 §23 of the Indiana Constitution to the
extent that it applies to the treatment but not the control group and that
it provides benefits for afterborn children not residing with their parents.
They also claim that the policy violates plaintiffs' federal constitutional
right to family integrity and privacy; that it irrationally penalizes children
for their parents' behavior in violation of federal and state constitutional
due process requirements; and that the state's failure to have written
guidelines to implement the voucher policy violates federal and state due
process requirements.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Kenneth Falk, Indiana Civil Liberties Union, 1031
E. Washington St.,
Indianapolis, IN 46202; tel. 317- 635-4059; fax 317-635-4105; e-mail:
indclu@aol.com.
This individual action challenges the practice of the City of New York
of giving petitioners workfare assignments which petitioners and intervenors
are not, as a result of medical
and psychiatric conditions, able to perform. The suit alleges that
the City of New York violates the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the due process clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions,
and the New York Social Services law by failing to accommodate the petitioners'
and intervenors' disabilities and by retaliating against individuals who
seek such accommodations. Petitioners are seeking broad declaratory and
injunctive relief.
Petitioners' Counsel: Susan Sternberg, Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Trial
Office, (718)
722-3100, ext. 2602.
This individual action challenges state policy as being in violation
of state law. Plaintiff's
SSI benefits had been terminated on the ground that he no longer meets
the definition of
disability, since the Contract with America Advancement Act provided
that disability caused by drug or alcohol addiction no longer qualifies
an individual for SSI. Under Social Security Administration (SSA) procedures,
benefits are continued pending an appeal only to the first, reconsideration,
stage, but are not continued pending a hearing before an administrative
law judge (ALJ). Illinois supplements SSI benefits. Under Illinois law
such benefits are to continue until an individual loses an appeal before
the SSA ALJ, and such benefits are to be adjusted promptly if there has
been a change in income. Illinois agency policy, however, is to terminate
the supplemental benefits once the SSI benefits stop after the reconsideration
decision, rather than increase the benefits to reflect the loss of income
pending the decision by the SSA ALJ. Plaintiff seeks individual relief
and a declaration that the agency policy violates governing state law.
Plaintiffs attorneys: Andrew J. Cohen and Diana C. White, Legal Assistance
Foundation of
Chicago, 343 South Dearborn Street, #700, Chicago, IL 60604; tel. 312-347-8307;
fax
312-341-1041.
The court held that (1) petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that he terminated employment to qualify for public assistance, and (2) petitioner's unemployment benefits, which were being withheld by the New York State Department of Labor to recover a previous overpayment of unemployment benefits, which were caused by the petitioner's own willful misrepresentation, should be considered income in determining the petitioner's need for public assistance.