The Supreme Court held that Arizona mothers seeking
child support services under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act cannot
sue under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to require the state to come into "substantial
compliance" with the requirements of IV-D. Applying the test set forth
in its decisions in Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association and Wright
v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, the Court found that the
requirement that states be in substantial compliance with the mandates
of Title IV-D did not create an individual right, because states can be
in substantial compliance and still not serve 10 to 25% of the eligible
population. The Court, however, remanded the case to the district court
to determine if other allegations in the complaint alleged specific violations
of provisions that may give rise to concrete, enforceable rights.
The Court rejected the state's alternative argument
that §1983 enforcement was unavailable because Congress had created
a comprehensive alternative enforcement scheme of HHS audits and penalties.
The Court also declined to consider the state's arguments, raised for the
first time in the Supreme Court, that the 11th amendment barred enforcement
of Title IV-D and that Maine v. Thibotout, which held that statutory rights
can be enforced under §1983, should be overruled. However, in a scary
concurrence joined by Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia said that the question
of whether §1983 should be available to enforce federal requirements
in joint federal-state programs should be reconsidered in a future case.
CH #46,993.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Marsha Berzon, Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon
& Rubin, 177 Post Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108; tel.
415-421-7151; fax 415-362-8064.
In a case that will have important ramifications for state laws mandating
drug tests for welfare recipients, the Supreme Court for the first time
struck down a statute requiring suspicionless drug tests. The Georgia law
in question required all candidates for public office to submit to urinalysis
drug tests. The Court noted that the 4th amendment bars suspicionless searches
absent "special need" and held that the state demonstrated no special need
for testing prospective public officials. One factor in the determination
that there was no special need present, although it is not clear whether
it was decisive, was that the state could not point to any history of drug
abuse among its public officials.
This class action case on behalf of AFDC and Home Relief recipients challenges New York City's policy and practice of requiring recipients to work off their public assistance grants at a rate less than or equal to the minimum wage. Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the City to determine the prevailing wage rate for the work being done by workfare participants, notify the participant of that rate, and utilize the prevailing rate in calculating the hours of workfare. In an oral ruling from the bench the court has granted class certification and preliminary relief, concluding that the City had no valid defense to plaintiffs' argument that the state constitution and state statutes require the City to use the higher of the minimum or prevailing wage in computing the hours of required work. The Court gave the City until May 16th to come up with a plan for assigning a value to the work. A written decision and order are expected to follow shortly thereafter. The City has indicated that it will appeal. CH # pending.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan of the Welfare Law Center; The Legal
Aid Society and the National Employment Law Project; Davis Polk & Wardwell.
A state trial judge has, after trial, ordered the New York State Department of Social Services to recalculate the shelter portion of the welfare grant for families. The current shelter allowance in New York City is $286 for a family of three. Under the judge's order, the new shelter schedule must bear "a reasonable relationship to the cost of housing in New York City." The Court has also ordered, pending promulgation of a new shelter schedule, the continuation of a system for providing interim relief in the form of higher shelter allowances to families threatened with eviction. Approximately 30,000 families are currently receiving such relief. The case was tried on remand from the New York Court of Appeals decision in Jiggetts v. Grinker, 74 N.Y.2d 411 (1990), which held that there is a state statutory right to a shelter allowance adequate to house families. CH #43,124.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are Susan Bahn of the Brooklyn office of The Legal
Aid Society of New York, 166 Montague Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; tel.
718-722-3100, ext. 2702; fax 718-722-3093; and Rebecca Scharf of the Bronx
office.
Plaintiffs have filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction challenging payment of most of their Aid to Needy Families with Children grant to their landlord without advance notice and opportunity for a hearing, and contrary to state regulations concerning "mismanagement" of funds. When the lead plaintiff's landlord notified her she would be evicted, she began withholding rent so she would have the money needed for moving expenses, a security deposit, and advance payment of the first month's rent in another location. The landlord spoke to the welfare agency, and without notice to her the welfare department began paying $460 per month directly to the landlord for current and back rent. That left her with $39 a month, making it impossible for her to move. Plaintiffs note that earlier litigation had proceeded under federal requirements that no longer apply, so that this suit must rely upon the federal due process clause and state policies.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Steve Norman, Vermont Legal Aid, P.O. Box 1367,
Burlington, VT 05402; tel. 802-863-5620; fax 802-863-7152.
This complaint arose from the harassment of clients of Mexican origin by a worker in a local welfare office in Washington state. HHS' Office of Civil Rights investigated the complaint that the office through its caseworker discriminated against clients of Mexican origin by seeking to deny benefits and by making demeaning and derogatory comments in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. The investigation revealed a ten-year history of complaints that the caseworker had harassed people of Mexican origin which had not been addressed by the local office because of its ineffective policies and procedures. OCR made a finding of unlawful discrimination and required the local office to take and document immediate action to insure that the discrimination stops; to set up policies and procedures to deal effectively with complaints of discrimination; to revise its discrimination complaint procedures to assure that clients and workers know about the complaint process; and to make a formal apology to the complainant. CH # pending.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Rosa Hernandez, Northwest Justice Project, 1408
N. 20th, Suite E, Pasco, WA 99301.
Claimant received mental health services through an HMO as part of her Medicaid benefits. The provider suspended the claimant's mental health case management services because of her difficult behavior without providing the opportunity for a prior hearing. Upon review, the Review Judge upheld the basis for the termination but held that since eligibility for services is based on Medicaid eligibility, the opportunity for a pre-termination hearing must be provided. The decision is based on state Medicaid regulations regarding prior hearings and state statutory requirements that providers have appropriate discharge procedures. The provider sought reconsideration of the conclusion regarding prior hearings. The Review Judge upheld the review decision on reconsideration based on applicable state Medicaid prior hearing regulations. CH # pending.
Claimant's attorney: Joy Ann Von Wahlde, Columbia Legal Services, 625 Commerce Street, Suite 420, Tacoma, WA 98402.