Civ. Action No. 96-1307 (Mass. Superior Court filed March 11, 1996)
Plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit challenge Massachusetts' policy of sanctioning AFDC recipients who do not provide specified information about their children's fathers, such as social security numbers, even when the recipients have provided all of the information that they have. Plaintiffs argue that the welfare department's policy violates the state statute and the state's Equal Rights Amendment, and that it violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions because it discriminates against children born outside of marriage. Defendant has agreed to a TRO halting sanctions of families who cannot produce the specified information for the time being and restoring benefits to those who have been sanctioned. A hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for April 9. Clearinghouse number pending.
95 Civ. 10990 (KTD) (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 29, 1995)
Plaintiffs in this proposed class action lawsuit allege that policies instituted last year by the New York City welfare agency have resulted in the denial (often without proper notice) or delay of cash assistance, food stamps, and medicaid to thousands of eligible families and individuals in violation of federal and state law. Plaintiffs also allege that the new policies were adopted in violation of the City's Administrative Procedures Act. The city's "Eligibility Verification Review" ("EVR") process requires all applicants for public assistance and all recertifying recipients to submit to one eligibility review at their local welfare centers and a second, duplicative review at a central location in Brooklyn, which requires travel of over an hour each way from many parts of the city. At the review in Brooklyn, applicants and recertifying recipients are grilled by individuals wearing badges who often attempt to persuade them to withdraw their applications or close their cases voluntarily. Afterwards, teams of two investigators conduct unscheduled visits to the homes of every applicant and recertifying recipient. People are often not home because they are participating in a mandatory work program. Frequently, eligible people are denied aid based on findings that they do not live at their addresses because investigators have not found them home when conducting these unscheduled home visits. In January, a judge denied plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order to stop expansion of the EVR program. The parties are currently pursuing discovery.