Ongoing Litigation
Watkins, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al. (GA Time Limits)
(Superior Court of California, Alameda County)
The Alameda County Social Services Agency was planning to terminate General Assistance (GA) benefits for more than 5,000 of the 8,500 recipients by adopting a policy that limits GA benefits to six months per year for those individuals the county classifies as “employable.” PILP, Heller Ehrman LLP, and Bay Area Legal Aid challenged the Agency’s action on grounds that the County (1) has inadequate standards to classify individuals as “employable” and “unemployable,” (2) does not have proper authority to implement this policy without affirmative Board of Supervisors approval, and (3) has provided deficient notices to current GA recipients, failing to properly inform them of the policy and their rights. Following the hearing on July 15, 2008, Alameda County Superior Court Judge David Hunter granted in part the writ of mandate, ordering that the County's current definition of "employable" does not comply with statutory obligations under Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 11000, 11000 and 17000. According to Judge Hunter's Order, the term "employable" must be construed "faily and equitably based on practicle employability factors, as required by the state's interest in providing G.A. benefits to indigents." For more information, please contact Stephen Ronfeldt.
McWaters v. FEMA
(U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana)
The federal district court enjoined FEMA from (1) terminating funding to provide emergency shelter in hotels and motels for a nationwide class of persons displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and (2) requiring that the displacees apply for small business loans as a precondition to obtaining housing assistance. 408 F.Supp.2d 221 (E.D. LA 2005) . The court certified a nationwide class. 237 F.R.d. 155 (E.D. LA 2006). The court also entered a permanent injunction holding that FEMA is not immune from judicial relief and that the displacees have protected property interests under the due process clause. 436 F.Supp.2d 802 (E.D. LA 2006).
Ridgley v. FEMA
(U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana)
On behalf of a nationwide class of persons displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining FEMA from (1) issuing incomprehensible notices terminating rental assistance, (2) failing to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to termination, (3) failing to provide aid paid pending an appeal challenging the termination of assistance, (4) issuing incomprehensible notices seeking recovery of previously paid benefits, (5) failing to provide notice to recipients subjected to recoupment actions of an opportunity to compromise their claims or obtain a waiver based on hardships, and (6) failing to provide adequate hearings on appeal. FEMA appealed the portion of the decision that does not apply to recovery and recoupment actions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether plaintiffs have a protectible due process property interest under a standard more narrow than the standard originally followed by the district court. 512 F3d 727 (5th Circurt 2008)
Serrano v. Allenby
(Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District)
This appeal concerns the failure of Los Angeles County to comply with California Welfare and Institutions Code section 16507.6, which sets forth statutory protections for children taken into foster care pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement. At the hearing before the trial court, the Superior Court held that section 16507.6 imposed a ministerial duty on the County. However, the final judgment and writ issued by the Superior Court only granted relief to the individual Petitioners, and the Superior Court refused to issue a writ of mandate ordering the County to conform its mis-interpretation of the law to its ruling and administer the program accordingly. PILP and The Alliance for Children’s Rights appealed the Superior Court’s failure to issue the writ in accordance with its finding.
Leonard v. Wagner
(Superior Court of California, San Francisco County; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)
This action challenges the State of California’s violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws by failing to make reasonable modifications to provisions of the State’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children- Foster Care (“AFDC-FC”) program. California’s AFDC-FC program funds the placement for youth who have been abused, neglected, and removed from their homes by the State by providing financial support through foster care payments to the individuals caring for the youth. Foster youth who are in school can continue to receive AFDC-FC benefits after the age of 18, but only if they can show they are expected to complete their educational program by their 19th birthday. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 11403. This rule, known as the “completion rule,” deprives foster children with disabilities who cannot be expected to complete school by age 19 because of their disabilities the same opportunity that their peers without disabilities have to participate in the AFDC-FC program between the ages of 18 and 19.
Brain Injury Policy Institute v. Shewry
(Superior Court of California, San Francisco County)
This action challenges the State’s failure to provide Medi-Cal coverage in intermediate care facilities for persons with developmental disabilities with onsets between ages 18-22. State law, contary to federal law, only provides for coverage of persons with developmental disabilities with onsets through age 18. Defendants removed the action, but the federal court remanded it back to state court on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. BIPI v. Shewry, 2006 WL 2237732 (N.D. Cal. 7/23/06). The state court held that defendants are violating the comparability clause of the Medicaid Act but denied plaintiffs’ federal pre-emption claim.
Brou v. FEMA
(United States District Court, Eastern Districa of Louisiana)
This case challenged FEMA’s failure to provide accessible trailers to persons with physical disabilities who were displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In 2006, the court approved a settlement mandating FEMA’s compliance with detailed accessibility standards when providing trailers to displacees with disabilities.
National Low-Income Housing Coalition v. Department of Homeland Security
(United States District Court, District of Columbia)
This Freedom of Information Act case seeks to compel disclosure of disaster relief information, including the electronic database of statistical information pertaining to FEMA’s mismanagement of its rental assistance and recoupment programs. The parties have stayed further litigation pending possible settlement of the case.
|
