Colorado Court Rules That Due Process Applies to TANF Benefits Despite "No Entitlement" Language
From June 1999 Welfare News
In what appears to be the first decision on the question, a Colorado state court judge has ruled orally that Colorado TANF benefits are a protected property interest to which due process requirements apply, despite language in the Colorado TANF statute that there is "no entitlement." The May 28, 1999 bench ruling came in Weston v. Hammons, which challenges sanction notices as inadequate and in violation of federal and state due process requirements and state statutory and regulatory requirements for adequate notice. The court’s ruling denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case and means that the case can proceed. The court also granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. A hearing on plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion is set for September.
A number of states have "no entitlement" language in their TANF statutes. While states with very limited exception have retained fair hearing notice and rights, there have been questions as to whether states would try to use "no entitlement" language to avoid due process requirements. There are good arguments based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions that states cannot simply rely on "no entitlement" language to avoid due process requirements where a statute otherwise creates a property interest, and the Colorado court’s ruling is an encouraging sign.
The Weston case was filed in early 1999 as a class action against Denver and Adams County welfare officials and the state welfare director to challenge the adequacy of state-generated notices sent to those subject to sanction under the Colorado Works Program. In addition to the due process claims, the plaintiffs claim that the state failed to supervise properly the counties’ administration of the program. Plaintiffs are individuals who have been sanctioned after receiving the notices, which include among its defects language that the sanction is being imposed because "you have failed to cooperate with the works requirement, child support requirement or immunization requirement of the Colorado Works Program." They claim that the counties have used the notices despite state administrative law judge decisions finding the notices legally inadequate and various state memos acknowledging that the logic of these decisions applies to other cases in which families received the same notice. According to news reports, over 1000 individuals received the defective notices.
Plaintiffs ask that the court declare the notices legally inadequate; bar sanctions based on the notices; require the county defendants to identify and notify those who have been illegally terminated of their rights to reinstatement, and require the counties to remove any sanctions resulting from the inadequate notices from individuals’ records and make restitution of illegally withheld benefits.
The Denver County defendant has agreed to settle the case by revising its notices, agreeing to send a pre-sanction letter giving a person the opportunity to fix the problem or show good cause before a sanction notice is sent, agreeing to provide informational materials about sanctions to clients, translation services with respect to the notices and informational materials, restoration of benefits to those sanctioned based on the inadequate notices and elimination of adverse consequences from the invalid sanctions, restitution according to a formula to those who wish to claim such payments after counseling about the potential effects of restitution on time limits, and subject to budget limitations, a transition team program to review each sanction that could result in case closure to ensure that proper procedures have been followed. On May 28th the court approved the settlement.
The court’s May 28th ruling after a lengthy hearing found that the plaintiffs have a property interest to which due process applies because under the state’s welfare program benefits must be provided to those who meet the state’s requirements. The statutory scheme creates an expectation of benefits for those who meet the requirements and does not allow unfettered agency discretion in determining who gets benefits. The court also ruled that plaintiffs did not have to exhaust administrative remedies because the case involves a question of law and the relief they seek, namely a systemic change in the notices used by the counties, could not be granted by an administrative law judge.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from four law firms: Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP; Faegre & Benson, LLP; McKenna & Cuneo, LLP; and Silver & Deboskey. For further information contact Maureen Farrell, Colorado Center on Law and Policy, 623 Fox Street, Denver, CO 80204, tel. 303-573-5669; email: msfarrell@uswest.net.
The Welfare Law Center has consulted with plaintiffs’ attorneys on this matter and is available to work with attorneys in other states addressing these and other due process issues. Contact Marc Cohan, Litigation Director, email: cohan (at) nclej.org.
