Doe v. Chandler, 1996 WL 257608 (9th Cir., May 17, 1996).
The Ninth Circuit has held that Hawaii's General Assistance Program which limits benefits to disabled needy individuals to one year and provides unlimited benefits to needy families with children does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act or federal Equal Protection or Due Process guarantees. The court concluded that the programs for disabled individuals and for families with children are separate, rejecting appellants' arguments that the program is essentially a single program. The ADA does not require that different programs have the same benefits. The court further held that the differential treatment was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of "preserving the fiscal integrity of the GA program while providing benefits to the greatest number and the most needy" and therefore did not violate Equal Protection or Due Process. The lower court had previously granted preliminary relief against a 6 month limit on GA for those disabled because of substance abuse (see Doe v. Chandler reported in the April Welfare Bulletin), and the Ninth Circuit opinion notes that the state had agreed to a permanent injunction against this limitation. CH # 51,132.
Doe v. Gallant, CV No. 96-1307-D (Mass. Superior Ct. April 19, 1996).
The court granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs in this challenge to a Massachusetts policy which sanctioned families when a mother did not provide certain very specific information about the father of her children, even when she had no way of obtaining that information. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims that the welfare department's policy violated the state statute, the state Equal Rights Amendment, and state and federal equal protection guarantees under both rational basis and heightened scrutiny (due to discrimination against children born out of wedlock). The welfare department has announced its intention to revise its policy on paternity establishment and child support cooperation. CH #51,056.
Richardson v. Commissioner of New York City Department of Social Services, New York Law Journal, p. 28, c. 2, April 26, 1996 (NY Court of Appeals April 25, 1996).
New York's highest court has ruled that a decision after fair hearing was arbitrary and capricious when, without explanation, the decision applied an interpretation of a state regulation diametrically opposed to the interpretation set forth by the state agency in response to comments at the time the regulation was adopted. The regulation in question governs the payment of rent arrears under a state funded emergency assistance program and requires recipients of assistance to sign agreements to pay back the assistance within twelve months. At issue was whether applicants need to demonstrate an ability to make the payments under such an agreement in order to qualify for assistance. Based on the explicit statement of the agency at the time the regulation was adopted that ability to pay the grant back was not a condition of eligibility, the court reversed the fair hearing decision. CH # pending.