In the Matter of the Appeal of P. C.. Appeal Number 2634969Y,
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (March 1998).
In this administrative appeal, the appellant challenged the number of hours of workfare to which he had been assigned. The Administrative Law Judge held that the New York City Department of Social Services must use the federal minimum wage in calculating the number of hours of workfare to which the appellant may lawfully be assigned. The Administrative Law Judge found that the number of hours Mr. C. was assigned to work were more should have resulted from dividing the federal minimum wage into his combined public assistance and food stamp grant. The Administrative Law Judge found that the over assignment of hours was the direct result of the New York City Department of Social Services' failure to reduce his hours after the grant was reduced following his eviction.
Appellant's Attorney: Marc Cohan, Welfare Law Center, 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1205,
New York, NY 10001-6708, tel. 212-633-6967, fax: 212-633-6371, e-mail:
cohan@welfarelaw.org.
The NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Welfare Law Center have filed a sexual harassment complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a TANF recipient assigned to New York City's workfare program. The complainant was required to work for 20 hours per week as a condition of receiving cash assistance for herself and her two children. The sexual harassment claim charges that a New York City "welfare to work" supervisor repeatedly sexually harassed the complainant by making comments on her appearance, offering to facilitate easier and better working conditions if she dated him, and propositioning her. The complainant further charges that she was never provided with information concerning the City of New York's sexual harassment policies or with information as to how to report incidents of harassment. The harassment was a contributing factor in the complainant leaving the workfare assignment.
Complainant's Counsel: Yolanda Wu, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, 99 Hudson
Street, New York, New York 10013, tel. (212) 925-6635 and Marc Cohan, Welfare Law Center,
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1205, New York, NY 10001-6708, tel. 212-633-6967, fax:
212-633-6371, e-mail: cohan@welfarelaw.org.
Weaver v. New Mexico Human Services Dept., 945 P. 2d 70 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 1997).
This case challenged a state regulation, adopted for budgetary reasons, limiting General Assistance benefits for disabled persons to twelve months as contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court, affirming the lower court's decision, held that plaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities for ADA purposes, that the state agency was a public entity obliged to satisfy ADA requirements, and that the regulation, which imposed time limits on GA recipients with disabilities but not on GA recipients who are dependent children, violated the ADA. In reaching its conclusion the court rejected the state's argument that the GA program was not a unified program but rather separate programs serving separate groups and that therefore identical benefits were not required. Instead, the court found that the GA program was a single program, designed to aid those not covered by federal programs, and that therefore the ADA required equal benefits. In finding the GA program to be a single program, the court rejected as inapplicable the Ninth Circuit's decision in Doe v. Chandler, 83 F. 3d 1150(9th Cir. 1996)upholding time limits for GA recipients with disabilities on the ground that Hawaii's GA program consisted of two programs.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Robert Ericson, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, 121 Tijeras
NE Suite 3001, Albuquerque, NM 87102, tel. 505-243-6282, e-mail: hn1604@handsnet.org, and
other attorneys.
Hernandez v. Barrios-Paoli, Index No. 403115/97 (Sup. Ct., NY County, Jan. 21, 1998).
Petitioner, a person with AIDS, applied to the Division of Aids Service Income Support (DASIS) for public assistance and completed the application and submitted all necessary documentation. He was informed that he had to submit to an eligibility verification review (EVR) at another city office. EVR is an additional eligibility requirement imposed on New York City public assistance applicants. The petitioner claimed that a local law establishing DASIS, providing that those with AIDS be able to apply and establish eligibility at one place and barring requirements more restrictive than those mandated by federal or state law, barred the additional EVR interview or the alternative home visit that the City subsequently proposed. The court agreed that the local law barred the city from applying EVR requirements to DASIS-eligible public assistance applicants and recipients. The court enjoined the city agency from taking adverse action against the petitioner based on his failure to appear for EVR and ordered the city agency to issue directives consistent with local law eliminating satisfaction of EVR as a requirement for benefits or services provided through or by DASIS. The appellate court reportedly has vacated the automatic stay of the lower court's order.
Petitioner's attorney: Armen Merjian, Housing Works, 594 Broadway, Suite 700, New York, NY 10012, tel. (212) 966-0466, fax (212) 966-0869.
Appeal No. 244721 (Massachusetts Dept. of Transitional Assistance, Jan. 29, 1998).
The department had determined that the TAFDC recipient who suffers from cerebral palsy was not disabled and therefore subject to TANF work and other rules. This impairment is not in the TAFDC listing and the information submitted by the physician was minimal. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Department could have set up a consultative medical exam or otherwise address the doctor's failure to provide information. She also found it reasonable to conclude that a person who meets an SSI listing has an impairment equivalent to TAFDC requirements. The claimant was found disabled and given a retroactive exemption.
Plaintiff's representative: Wendy Kane (paralegal), Western Massachusetts Legal
Services, 20 Hampton Ave., Suite 100, Northampton, MA 01060, tel. (413) 584-4034; fax
(413) 585-0418.
Appeal No. 253725 (Mass. Dept. of Transitional Assistance, Dec. 26, 1997).
After the appellant failed to appear for two scheduled appointments her application for EAEDC was denied. She failed to keep the appointments because she did not have verification which the the appointment form indicated was required. However this verification was not actually required by program rules. Program rules require the agency to identify eligibility factors to be verified. The hearing officer concluded that the appellant's failure to appear was the result of the incorrect verification request by the agency and that appellant had good cause for failure to appear.
Appellant's attorney: Laura Gallant, Neighborhood Legal Services, 37 Friend St., Lynn, MA 01902.