Walton v. Hammons, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22811 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 1999).
In this class action, the court affirmed the district court's decision that Michigan's policy of denying food stamps to an entire household when the adult has failed to comply with the child support and paternity establishment requirements of the state's Family Independence Program was in violation of the Food Stamp Act. While agreeing with the lower court that the statutory language weighs against the state's policy, the court found that some ambiguity in the statute remained, and turned to legislative history to resolve the matter. Most importantly, the court found that Congressional intent to harmonize Food Stamps and TANF did not overwhelm Congress's desire to create a "safety net" for children, and that the legislative history of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act indicated a clear intention to prevent the disqualification of a family's FSA benefits when an adult did not comply with certain rules.
Plaintiff's attorneys: Jackie Doig, Terri Stangl Center for Civil Justice, 320 S. Washington, 2nd Floor, Saginaw, MI 48607; tel: (517) 755-3120; fax: (517) 755-3558; email: cfcj@concentric.net.
Matter of Hernandez v. Barrios-Paoli, Index No. (N.Y. Court of Appeals, Oct. 19, 1999).
In a 7-0 decision, New York's highest court has held that New York City's Eligibility Verification System (EVR) for public assistance applicants, a second eligibility review process, violates New York City local law which requires that individuals with clinical/symptomatic HIV or AIDS be able to establish eligibility for public assistance at the Division of AIDS Services Income Support (DASIS) of the Human Resources Administration. The EVR program is an intensive verification program which includes home visits, extensive interviews with the applicant, and third party contacts. Petitioner, a DASIS client who had applied and submitted all documentation at the DASIS Manhattan office, was told he had to go through yet a second eligibility screening and appear for an EVR interview at HRA's Brooklyn office in order to receive public assistance. The court concluded that EVR, as applied to DASIS clients, violates the local law which requires that DASIS staff establish and review eligibility. The court also concluded that EVR also is contrary to the local law's purpose of facilitating access to assistance for those with HIV/AIDS.
Plaintiff's attorney: Armen H. Merjian, Housing Works, 594 Broadway, Suite 700, New York, NY 10012, tel. 212-966-0466, fax 212-966-0869.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Determination (New York District Office).
The EEOC has ruled that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Respondents (New York City and state agencies) subjected the Charging Party, a workfare (WEP) worker, to sexual harassment and constructively dismissed her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In making this determination the EEOC found that the WEP worker was a covered employee for purposes. The WEP worker had asserted that her workfare supervisor regularly made unwelcome sexual comments and propositions to her and to other WEP workers and that this behavior caused her to leave the WEP program. The EEOC found that the city welfare agency failed to inform WEP workers of their Title VII rights and to provide a mechanism for these workers to complain about harassment. The EEOC will now initiate a conciliation process with the Respondent, and if this is unsuccessful, will inform Respondent of the EEOC's court enforcement option.
Charging Party's Attorneys: 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; Yolanda Wu, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, 99 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10013, tel. (212) 925-6635.
Ramirez v. Giuliani, 99 Civ. (S.D.N.Y. filed August 27, 1999) (Complaint).
This class action against New York city and state defendants, on behalf of New York Food Stamp applicants and recipients who speak a language other than English, challenges the City's failure to provide interpreter services at various public benefits offices and its failure to translate Food stamp materials, including forms and notices, into appropriate languages. Named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of New York City Food Stamp applicants and recipients who speak a language for which any certification office in the City serves an area having approximately 100 single-language minority low-income households who speak the same language. They assert claims under the Food Stamp Act and implementing regulations, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York state law protecting against discrimination, and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring the city, inter alia, to provide material for non-English speaking clients, provide proficient interpreter services for every oral communication between clients and agency staff, and refrain from telling clients that interpreter services are not available or to get their own interpreter. They also seek an order requiring the state defendant to oversee and supervise the city's administration of the program to assure access to the program by non-English speaking individuals. Plaintiffs' counsel reports that upon filing they moved for a TRO and for preliminary relief and class certification. The city has agreed to restore food stamps and to provide interpreter services to the named plaintiffs and for several intervenors. Discovery is proceeding and plaintiffs expect a briefing schedule and hearing date to be set late in October.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Constance P. Carden, Randal S. Jeffrey, Andrew Friedman, Law Graduate, New York Legal Assistance Group, 130 East 59th Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10022, Tel. (212) 750-0800, Ext. 123; Foster Maier, Sara Rios, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, 99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10013; Tel. (212) 219-3360; Make The Road By Walking, Steven L. Jenkins, 301 Grove Street, Brooklyn, New York 12237, Tel. (718) 418-7690.
Marchwinski v. Howard, Civ. Act. No. ______ (E.D. Mich, September 30, 1999) (complaint).
This case, filed as a class action against the director of the Family Independence Agency of the state of Michigan, challenges the legality of a "pilot project" of the Family Independence Assistance ("FIA") program which requires drug-testing for all program applicants and recipients. Refusal to agree to random drug testing will result in denial or termination of FIA cash assistance, and may result in denial or termination of other benefits, including food stamps and medicaid. The 1996 federal welfare law permitted, but did not require, states to impose drug testing on welfare recipients, and Michigan is the first to enact such a law. Drug testing began in four counties on October 1, 1999, and the legislature intends that a statewide program of drug testing of FIA recipients be implemented before April 1, 2003. Plaintiffs argue that drug testing, without reasonable suspicion of drug use, constitutes an "unreasonable search" and a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs note that Michigan does not require mandatory random drug testing of those who receive other state financial benefits, including students, corporations, and taxpayers, and that plaintiffs are being discriminated against and stigmatized as more likely than other recipients of state financial benefits to be substance abusers. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief protecting applicants and recipients of family independence assistance from suspension or limitation of their benefits as a result of their refusal to consent to suspicionless drug testing. Available on the web at www.aclumich.org/briefs/welf930.htm.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Robert A. Sedler, Wayne State University Law School, 468 W. Ferry, Detroit, MI 48202, tel. (313) 577-3968; Cameron R. Getto and David R. Getto, Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 900, Southfield, MI 48075, tel. (248) 355-0300; Kary L. Moss, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of MI, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Suite 2910, Detroit, MI 48226, tel. (313) 961-7728; Graham Boyd, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 160 Foster Street, New Haven, CT 06511, tel. (203) 787-4188.
Smith v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, No. ___ (Los Angeles Superior Ct.).
According to a report from the Western Center on Law and Poverty, this case challenges a pilot project under which all CalWORKS applicants in four offices are subject to a mandatory home visit as a condition of receiving welfare. The visits are conducted by welfare eligibility workers to uncover fraud and are supposed to be non-intrusive. The main purpose is to identify fraud and another asserted purpose is to identify supportive service needs. The visits are unannounced with applicants only knowing that a worker will visit at some point during a ten-day period. Families that are not home for two unannounced visits will have their application denied if they do not contact the welfare office. If they are not home for a third visit the application will be denied even if the family does contact the office. A petition for a writ of mandate was filed on September 14, 1999 and petitioners requested a temporary restraining order the next day. The court denied the request and concluded that petitioners could not seek preliminary relief because the petition only sought a writ. Petitioners' claims are based on state regulations barring "mass or indiscriminate home visits" and permitting home visits only when eligibility cannot otherwise be determined; state welfare law provisions; and state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizures and protecting privacy in one's home.
Petitioners' attorneys: Yolanda Arias, Silvia Argueta, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, East LA office, tel. 213-640-3883; Kate Meiss, Dora Lopez, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, tel. 818-896-5211; Western Center on Law and Poverty; ACLU Foundation of Southern California.
Hayden v. Wing, Index No. 4430-99 (N.Y. Supreme Court, Albany Cy., Petition dated July 16, 1999).
Plaintiff challenges a provision of the state's welfare law that requires applicants, as a condition of eligibility, to sign 1) an agreement to repay overpayments that remain after the applicant stops receiving assistance; and 2) an assignment of future earnings to secure repayment of any such overpayment after an opportunity for a fair hearing. Plaintiff had incurred no overpayment at the time she was asked to sign the forms. She declined to sign the forms and was denied assistance. That denial was upheld after a fair hearing. She subsequently needed public assistance and signed the forms. She now challenges the requirement as a violation of 1) a provision of the state's Personal Property Law which requires an assignment to describe specifically and fully the transaction to which it relates; 2) the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions; and 3) Article XVII (1) of the New York State Constitution by imposing an eligibility condition which is unrelated to need.
Plaintiff's attorney: Susan Antos, Greater Upstate Law Project, 119 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12210, tel. 518 462-6831, fax: 518 462-6687, email: santos@wnylc.com.
Case No. 230183160-001 (Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare, Sept.1,1999).
Appellant is a non-English speaking individual who, pursuant to an Agreement of Mutual Responsibility, was required to engage in certain work activities following 24 months of receipt of TANF benefits and who wanted to complete an ESL program as part of her 20-hour per week work requirement. During her first 24 months of TANF receipt she had asked for referral to an ESL program but no referral was made nor was she ever tested for her English ability. During this time she received notices in English and had her daughter who could speak some English accompany her to welfare department interviews. The hearing officer agreed that the appellant should be allowed to complete an ESL program as part of her 20 hour per week work requirement and ordered the welfare agency to develop a new Agreement of Mutual Responsibility to reflect this activity.
Appellant's representative: Anne Vaughan, Delaware County Legal Assistance Assoc., 410 Welsh St., Chester, PA 19013, tel. 610 874-8421.
In re C.B. (Ohio Dept. of Human Services, July 29, 1999).
The administrative hearing examiner lifted the appellant's sanction because the agency failed to amend the appellant's self-sufficiency contract. The agency assigned the appellant to conduct a survey of ten community agencies per week and provide a report about what each of the agencies did. The appellant failed to participate due to a high-risk pregnancy during which the appellant was limited to moderate activity. The agency reduced the appellant's assignment to one survey per week, but failed to amend the appellant's self-sufficiency contract to reflect the change. To further complicate matters, the agency's proposed sanction indicated that the appellant failed to complete "personal summaries" related to her goals. The state hearing decision held that the appellant failed to comply with either the stated assignment or the amended assignment, and that pregnancy was not an illness for purposes of good cause under the county's good cause plan. The administrative hearing officer reversed the state hearing decision, holding that the sanction proposed was for activities not included in the self-sufficiency contract, and therefore could not be imposed. Reprinted from OSLSA Reports Vol. 21, No. 8, August/September 1999.
Plaintiff's attorney: Frank Avellone, Wooster-Wayne Legal Aid Society, Wooster, OH, tel. 330-264-9454.