Westenfelder v. Ferguson, Civ. Action No. 97-478L (D.R.I. August 21, 1997)(complaint).
Plaintiffs challenge a state law which pays families who are new residents of the state a welfare benefit that is 30% lower than that received by residents who have lived in the state continuously for one year. They claim that the statute violates the right to travel and equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 404 (c) as added by § 103(a) of the PRA of 1996. The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order and held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on September 10 & 11. The parties are working on post-hearing memoranda of law.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: ACLU of Rhode Island (volunteer attorneys David Cicilline, tel.
401-273-5600 and Dianne Izzo) and Christopher Lamb of the Welfare Law Center.
Sanchez v. Department of Human Services, Docket No. ________ (N.J. Superior Ct. App.
Div. filed September 15, 1997)(complaint).
Plaintiff in this case challenges a New Jersey statute which sets the welfare benefit level for new residents at the level paid in their previous states (if less than the New Jersey benefits level) for their first year in New Jersey. Plaintiff claims that the statute violates the federal and state right to travel, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the unequal treatment provision of the New Jersey Constitution.
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. (908) 572-9100.
Brukhman v. Giuliani, Index No. 407215/96 (Supreme Court, N.Y. Cty., May 19, 1997).
This class action case on behalf of AFDC and Home Relief recipients
challenged 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 on
May 12th the court 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.
A written decision followed on May 19, 1997. The Court found that the
work performed by workfare workers is similar to, if not the same as, work performed by
regular City workers. The Court's ruling was based on prevailing wage requirements of the
New York State Constitution as well as New York State statutory provisions. The Court
further found that neither the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 nor the federal food stamp statutes mandates the use of the minimum wage in
calculating hours. Rather, the Court concluded, the federal scheme provides only that the
minimum wage is a floor and that a higher living or prevailing wage may be used to
calculate workfare hours. The Court gave the City until September 26, 1997 to come up with
a plan for assigning a value to the work. The City has appealed. CH # pending.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan of the Welfare Law Center; The Legal Aid Society; the
National Employment Law Project; and Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York City.
Sojourner A. et al. v. New Jersey Dept. of Human Services, Docket No. _____ (N. J. Superior Ct., Chancery Div. Essex Cy., Sept. 1997) (complaint).
This case, filed as a class action, challenges the New Jersey child exclusion provision, which denies an AFDC grant increase to a child conceived by and born to a household eligible for welfare within a year before the child's birth. Plaintiffs claim that the policy violates the equal protection and privacy guarantees of Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. The complaint also alleges, on behalf of a subclass, that the state has improperly applied the provision to individuals who were not adult welfare recipients when they conceived and gave birth to their children. Plaintiffs have moved for preliminary relief on the constitutional claims.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Lenora Lapidus, et. al. American Civil Liberties Union of N.J.,
2 Washington Pl., Newark, NJ 07102; tel. 201-642-2086; Martha Davis, et al., NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund; tel. 212-925-6635; Lawrence Lustberg et al., Crummy Del Deo,
Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, Newark, NJ.
Fridman v. City of New York, 97 Civ. 6099 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (complaint).
This is an action for damages suffered by the plaintiff, a welfare recipient assigned to workfare who suffered a heart attack during his workfare placement. Plaintiff alleges that the City of New York, the New York City Department of Social Services, the health care screening service with which it contracts, and the examining physician negligently failed to diagnose plaintiff's pre-existing cardiac condition and erroneously assigned plaintiff, a 55 year old man, to grueling physical labor washing garbage trucks four days per week. The action also alleges that City defendants failed to exercise appropriate and reasonable care and diligence in the operation of the medical screening service so as to increase the likelihood that the negligent medical examination would occur. Plaintiffs claim violations of the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act and assert an entitlement to relief pursuant to common law negligence and malpractice theories. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought.
Plaintiffs' Attorney: Andrew Weltchek, at Rosen, Preminger & Bloom, 67 Wall Street,
New York, NY, tel. 212-962-5858.
Shvartsman v. Callahan, No. 97-C5229 (N.D. Illinois, July 24, 1997)(complaint).
This class action suit has been filed on behalf of legal permanent residents of the United States who were receiving food stamps or SSI benefits and were in the process of applying for U.S. citizenship when the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA) eliminated their benefits eligibility. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining termination of their benefits on the basis of a citizenship requirement before allowing them to complete the lengthy naturalization application process. They argue that such termination violates their due process rights by not giving them fair opportunity to establish their continuing benefits eligibility. Plaintiffs have moved for class certification and preliminary relief.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: John Bouman, Poverty Law Project, National Clearinghouse for
Legal Services, Inc., 2055 W. Monroe, 2nd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606; tel. 312-263-3830; and
the National Immigration Law Center, National Senior Citizens Law Center, SSI Coalition
for a Responsible Safety Net, Lehrer & Redleaf, Food Research and Action Center, and
Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc.
Zizumbo v. Callahan, No. 97 C 4971 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 1997) (complaint).
This class action challenges SSA's policy of applying the noncitizen eligibility criteria in §402 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA) to legal noncitizens for periods before August 22, 1996, the date of the PRA's enactment. Plaintiffs seek SSI benefits to which the plaintiffs are otherwise entitled from the date of their SSI application through August 21, 1996. Plaintiffs claim that SSA's policy violates the federal SSI statute and implementing regulations which require payment of SSI to all eligible applicants. They seek to represent a class of legal noncitizens in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Tom Yates, Sue Augustus, SSI Coalition for A Responsible Safety
Net, 205 W. Monroe, Chicago, IL 60606; tel. 312 223-9600; John Bouman, Poverty Law
Project; Ethel Zelenske, National Senior Citizens Law Center.
Medina v. Callahan, No. 97-1760 (S.D. Florida, June 5,1997) (complaint).
This class action suit challenges the Social Security Administration's retroactive denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to elderly, blind, and disabled legal immigrants in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama who had SSI applications pending before the restrictions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA) went into effect. Plaintiffs argue that this denial violates the PRA by retroactively imposing restrictions on non-citizens' eligibility for benefits which, by the terms of the PRA, did not become effective until August 22, 1996. They also argue that the denial of benefits to individuals who were eligible at their time of application violates the Social Security Act.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Ellen Saideman, Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities,
Inc., 2901 Stirling Road, Suite 206, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312; tel. 954-967-1493, fax
954-967-1496; and Valery Greenfield and Miriam Harmatz (tel. 305-573-0092) and Cindy
Huddleston (tel. 904-385-7900), Florida Legal Services.
City of Chicago v. Shalala, No. 97C4884 (Northern Dist. of Ill., Eastern Div., July 10, 1997)(complaint).
The City of Chicago has filed a suit challenging the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA)'s denial of
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to legal permanent resident aliens as discriminatory,
and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The City charges that the statute's
implementation will harm the City's fiscal soundness and social fabric and the health,
welfare, and lives of its targeted residents and their families and communities.
The City argues that the benefit withdrawal's purported goal of
encouraging self-sufficiency and discouraging illegal immigration is a pretext for the
goal of deficit reduction, as is shown by the fact that the individuals targeted have
already been found unable to be self-sufficient and have already immigrated. It further
argues that the pursuit of deficit reduction by withdrawing the benefits of the discrete
group of otherwise eligible legal permanent resident aliens violates the due process and
equal protection rights of both the targeted individuals and their families and
communities. In addition, the City argues that the PRA violates the principle of
separation of powers by purporting to authorize discrimination in benefits distribution by
the State of Illinois, and violates the Older Americans Act by withdrawing benefits from
elderly individuals in great social and economic need without the required submission of a
written evaluation of impact to the Secretary on Aging.
Plaintiff's Attorneys: Patricia Bergeson, Acting Corporation Counsel; Gail Niemann, Deputy Corporation Counsel; and Assistant Corporation Counsels; City of Chicago Law Department, Litigation Division, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60602; tel. 312-744-0458, 7220.