New Jersey Department of Social Services v. Sanchez, Docket No. 46,538 (Supreme Court of New Jersey).
The state has sought certification to reverse the unanimous decision of the Appellate Division invalidating a state statute providing lower welfare benefits to new state residents. Respondent-Appellant (plaintiff below) has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certification in light of the overwhelming weight of judicial opinions finding such schemes unconstitutional. The Appellate Court decision was reported in the July 1998 Welfare Bulletin.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Melville D. Miller, Harris David, Leighton Holness, Regan
Almonor, and Mary Acevedo, Legal Services of New Jersey, P.O. Box 1357, Edison, NJ
08818-1357, tel. 732-572-9100, fax 732-572-0066, email: lsnj@lsnj.org.
Hicks v. Peters, No. 98-C-3247, N. D. Ill. (Oct. 22, 1998).
The State has filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's decision invalidating the state's durational residency requirement (last reported in July 1998 Welfare Bulletin)
Plaintiffs' attorneys: John M. Bouman, Wendy Pollack, Dory Rand, Carolyn Shapiro, and
Margaret Stapleton of the Poverty Law Project, National Clearinghouse for Legal Services,
205 West Monroe Street, 2nd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606, tel. 312-263-3830, fax 312-263-3846;
and Henry A. Freedman of the Welfare Law Center.
Westenfelder v. Ferguson, No. 98-1431 (1st Cir., Oct. 6, 1998).
After hearing oral argument earlier in the day on the state's appeal from the District Court's decision striking down the Rhode Island durational residency provision (last reported in April 1998 Welfare Bulletin), the court entered an order deferring consideration of the case until after the Supreme Court decides Roe v. Anderson (reported in September 1998 Welfare Bulletin).
Plaintiffs' attorneys: ACLU of Rhode Island (volunteer attorneys David Cicilline, tel.
401-273-5600, and Dianne Izzo) and Henry Freedman of the Welfare Law Center.
Ward v. Thomas, Civil No. 3:95cv1284 (JBA) (D.Conn., Mar. 31, 1998).
This class action, filed in 1995, challenged proposed AFDC reductions resulting from a
policy of counting a part of housing subsidies as unearned income. Plaintiffs' claims
included procedural due process claims and federal AFDC statutory claims, and plaintiffs
obtained preliminary relief. (See 895 F. Supp. 406 (D.Conn. 1995) for the decision
granting a temporary restraining order on the grounds that defendant had not provided
adequate notice.) After the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 eliminated the AFDC program, plaintiffs contended that the PRA's "Savings
Clause," § 116 (b)(2)(A) of the PRA, imposes a continuing obligation on the
defendant to correct AFDC pre-October 1, 1996 underpayments as required by former federal
AFDC law and that defendant was acting illegally in failing to correct underpayments
resulting from the illegal AFDC policy to a plaintiff subclass. A sub-class was
subsequently certified and the parties then cross-moved for summary judgment. In a lengthy
opinion the court ruled for the plaintiffs, concluding that the "Savings Clause"
does not eliminate but rather continues the defendant's duty under former federal AFDC law
to correct AFDC pre-October 1, 1996 underpayments. Accordingly the Court concluded that
notice and declaratory relief was appropriate. In reaching its decision, the court
rejected defendant's arguments that they had no obligation to correct any underpayments
because plaintiffs had not filed timely administrative appeals and that the Eleventh
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars declaratory and notice relief there was no ongoing
federal law violation. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Kathleen A. Sullivan, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, P.O. Box 209090, New Haven, CT 06520-9090, tel. 203-432-4800; Shelley White and Judith Hoberman, New Haven Legal Assistance Association, 426 State Street, New Haven, CT 06510-2018, tel. 203-946-4811, fax 203-498-9271; Shirley Bergert, Connecticut Legal Services, 872 Main Street, P.O. Box 258, Willimantic, CT 06226-0258, tel. 203-456-1761, fax 203-456-7420.
Hernandez v. Barrios-Paoli, 1998 WL 566641 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Sept. 3, 1998).
This case, brought by petitioner, an HIV-positive person, challenged the application of the New York City Eligibility Verification Review (EVR) requirement relating to residence. The EVR system used for public assistance applicants generally requires an EVR office interview and home visit or in some cases just a home interview. Petitioner claimed that the EVR requirement violated the local law establishing the Division of Aids Service Income Support (DASIS) (through which he applied for public assistance) which requires that assistance be provided at a single location and bars eligibility requirements more restrictive than those mandated by federal or state law. The appellate court has reversed the lower court decision for the petitioner, concluding that the local law does not eliminate the EVR process and that an individual must meet relevant eligibility criteria. This case was previously reported in the February 1998 Welfare Bulletin.
Petitioner's attorney: Armen Merjian, Housing Works, 594 Broadway, Suite 700, New York, NY 10012, tel. 212-966-0466, fax 212-966-0869.
Hearing Decision 260685 (Mass. Dept. of Transitional Assistance, Oct. 1, 1998).
Appellant challenged the welfare agency's proposed sanction for failure to comply with the work requirements of her Employment Development Plan. The Hearing Officer found that the agency had agreed to provide child care but the Child Care Circuit worker never issued a voucher because she was concerned about how the appellant would get her child to the child care provider. Appellant told the worker she would take the child, but the worker said she would contact the provider. The voucher was never issued and the appellant unsuccessfully tried several times to get the agency to assist her. The hearing officer found for the appellant based on regulations providing good cause for child care breakdown or transportation problems. She also noted that transportation benefits are available for transportation to and from child care, that the department had a duty to notify appellant about all possible benefits, but did not tell her or assist with transportation.
Appellant's attorney: Nancy Rae, Greater Boston Legal Services, 197 Friend St., Boston, MA 02114, tel. 617-371-1270, fax 617-371-1222.
Hearing Decision No. 259809 (Mass. Dept. of Transitional Assistance, Aug. 19, 1998).
Appellant had contested the department's failure to give her a domestic violence waiver from the work requirement and the time limit. Subsequent to her hearing request the department granted a work exemption until 1/1/99. The issue remaining for the hearing involved the question of the appellant's eligibility for an exemption of the TANF 24 month time limit due to domestic violence. The state's policy, reflected in a policy memo and a letter from its counsel's office, is that it refuses to determine such requests until the 22nd month of benefits receipt and that therefore before that time there cannot be any adverse action from which an individual can appeal. The Hearing Officer rejected this policy as not supported by state regulations and concluded that a person can appeal the continued running of her 24 month time clock at any time. The position that allowing the clock to run is not an adverse action fails to understand the time limit, and requiring a person to wait until the 22nd month to determine if she is eligible for an exemption gives her little time to prepare for the consequences if the exemption is denied. The department's position is inconsistent with its position that in other specified situations a person's clock can be suspended. The appellant was granted an exemption from the time limit until 1/1/99.
Plaintiff's attorney: A. Margolis, Western Massachusetts Legal Services, 127 State Street, Springfield, MA 01103, tel. 413-781-7814 or 800-639-1109, fax 413-746-3221.