http://povertylaw.org/ The Sargent Shriver National Center On Poverty Law, All Rights Reserved Zope 3 2007-03-01T21:24:43Z 2007-03-01T21:24:43Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/56000/56017 janinefletcher

Minnesota District Court Finds State Incorrectly Included Housing Subsidy As Income In Determining Eligibility for Welfare Benefits

2006-09-08T15:07:33Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/50700/50792 janinefletcher Appellant unemployment compensation claimant has appealed the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission disqualifying her from benefits. While employed full-time as an administrative assistant, appellant supplemented her income by working part-time one night a week as an office assistant for another employer. After being laid off from her full-time job, she applied for and received unemployment compensation. Subsequently, she quit her part-time job for personal reasons. Finding that she had left her part-time job without good cause attributable to her employer, the commission disqualified her from benefits. On appeal, appellant argues that the commission committed legal error by interpreting a recent amendment to state law, which defines "work" for unemployment compensation purposes as either full-time, part-time, or temporary employment, to disqualify appellant from benefits. She asserts that the most reasonable interpretation of this amendment is that in a disqualification issue the circumstances surrounding the termination from each of the claimant's employers, whether full-time or part-time, should be controlling. Appellant also argues that by effectively preventing persons who quit their part-time jobs for personal reasons from showing that they are otherwise entitled to a portion of their nemployment compensation benefits based on being laid off from their former, full-time employment, whereas full-time employees who never obtained part-time work are not so penalized, the commission's interpretation establishes a classification that frustrates the legitimate state goal of encouraging work.

Claimant Who Quit Her Part-Time Job After Being Laid Off from Her Full-Time Job Challenges Benefit Disqualification

2006-08-31T20:46:10Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/56000/56016 admin

2006-03-22T20:03:24Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/54200/54284 admin Plaintiffs—low-income families who are or may be applicants for defendant housing authority–administered public housing—opposed defendant city’s motion to dismiss their challenge to the planned demolition of a 284-unit family public housing development in Massachusetts. A statewide nonprofit housing organization is also a plaintiff. In this class action, plaintiffs contended that city and housing authority already took the necessary first steps toward demolition by moving families out of the development and refusing to rent vacant units to families on the waiting list. They alleged that defendants’ actions violated state law, which imposes strict conditions as a prerequisite to demolition. They further alleged that, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defendants unlawfully used community block grant development funds in furtherance of the demolition, that defendants violated the one-for-one replacement of lower-income housing and relocation assistance requirements of section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and that the proposed demolition would violate federal civil rights laws. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Opposing dismissal, plaintiffs argue that city bears joint responsibility for development plan provisions that fail to meet state legislative criteria, that city spent significant amounts of federal funds in connection with the development’s demolition, and that Congress unambiguously intended that when community development block grant funds are used to plan and implement demolition of low-income housing and demolition results in displacement, section 104(d) replacement and relocation benefits are triggered.

Low-Income Families Oppose City’s Motion to Dismiss Their Challenge to Planned Demolition of Public Housing Development

2007-02-08T20:03:22Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/55900/55972 admin No abstract is available.

Supreme Court Holds That Government May Seize Social Security Benefits to Collect Student Loan Debt

2006-03-09T23:23:38Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/56000/56005 admin No abstract is available.

Class of H-2A Cane Cutters Opposes Federal Motion to Dismiss Wage Claims Based on Decertification of Class in Prior State-Court Proceeding

2006-03-09T23:24:20Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/56000/56012 admin No abstract is available.

Court Awards Prevailing Party $97,101.25 in Attorney Fees Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

2006-03-09T23:23:21Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/56000/56002 admin No abstract is available.

Court Approves Settlement of Suit that Challenged Conditions and Inequality in California Public Schools Under the State Constitution, Education Codes, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2007-02-15T18:43:36Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/55900/55909 admin Plaintiffs'- school districts in Michigan, Texas, and Vermont and the National Education Association and its affiliates in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Vermont – filed suit in district court against the U.S. secretary of education. They alleged that secretary is violating the "unfounded mandates provision" of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a), by requiring states and school districts to comply fully with all of the Act’s mandates even though states and school districts do not receive sufficient federal funding to pay for such compliance. Plaintiffs assert that defendant thus violates the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution. They seek an order declaring that states and school districts need not spend non-Act funds to comply with the Act’s mandates and that failure to comply is not grounds for defendant to withhold federal funds to which states and districts are otherwise entitled; they also seek to enjoin defendant from withholding Act funds due to any failure to comply with the Act’s mandates if such failure is attributable to a refusal to spend other funds to achieve compliance. Defendant moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion to dismiss holding that the Act plainly states that while federal officers or employees are prohibited from requiring school district or states to spend funds to comply with the Act, Congress itself may require such local funding as a condition of receiving federal funds. Plaintiffs appeal.

School Districts Appeal District Court Dismissal of No Child Left Behind Lawsuit Arguing Act Specifically States Neither School Districts Nor States Are Required Spend Own Funds To Comply With Act

2006-03-09T21:14:37Z http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/54400/54475 admin

$75 Million from Jury and $284 Million from Court Awarded to Class of Social Security Beneficiaries; Bank Appeals; Bank Had Seized Plaintiffs’ Direct-Deposited Benefits Without Notice to Cover Overdrafts and Fees for Nonsufficient Funds