Rosado v. Wyman

69-C-355 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 22, 1970); Clearinghouse Number: 1886

Description

AFDC Recipients Continue Fight Against New York's Revised Welfare Schedule

Abstract

Rosado v. Wyman is back in the district court. The case challenges the New York flat-rate payment schedule for AFDC. The welfare recipients argued that the reductions produced by the new schedule were inconsistent with § 402(a)(23) of the Social Security Act, which required an adjustment of standards and maximums based on the rising cost of living.

The Court of Appeals for the second Circuit overturned the injunction issued by the district court, and held that the district court did not have jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals held that New York had complied with § 402(a)(23), which merely required an adjustment in standards of need and the abandonment of family maximums. It did not require increased benefits. On April 6, l970, the Supreme Court held that states could reduce AFDC grants through use of the percentage reduction device and the extension of authority to defendants to pay less than full need. But New York had "impermissibly lowered its standard of need by eliminating items that were included prior to the enactment of § 402(a)(23)." 397 U.S. at 416. The state had failed to include in its AFDC program any allowances for the items formerly covered by special grants.

The Supreme Court remanded to the district court, which would retain jurisdiction to review, taking into account any views of HEW, and any revised program adopted by the state. If the state did not adopt a revised program by the date set by the district court, the district court should enjoin further use of federal funds.

On May 20, 1970, New York submitted a revised plan to the district court. Plaintiffs now seek a declaration of the invalidity of the revised plan, and injunction against further expenditure of federal funds, and an order that benefits wrongfully withheld be paid them. Plaintiffs claim that the new plan does not accomplish a fair restoration of those items of need illegally eliminated in July 1969. Prior to July 1969, New York's standard of need was essentially composed of (a) a regular recurring grant, (b) shelter costs, and (c) special need items for which a cash grant was paid when individual need was demonstrated. In New York City, two of the special need items were replaced by a cyclical grant of $100 per person per year. Plaintiffs submit that in order for the state's revised plan to comply with § 402(a)(23), defendants must show either that in consolidating their standard of need they have not created a new standard which is less than it was prior to enactment of § 402(a)(23), or, if the standard has been reduced, that the items formerly included no longer constitute part of the reality of existence for the majority of welfare recipients. Plaintiffs argue that defendants are unable to establish either of this conditions of compliance because of the lack of relevant information about special grants both in terms of amounts of grants and frequency of payments.

In 1969, HEW set out one method by which states could revised the content of their standard. It suggested that the Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin No. 1570-5 be used as a reference to reestablish a low-income level of living based on 1967 costs. The state selects items of living consonant with state conditions. Such standard of living would then be up-dated. Plaintiffs claim that New York has distorted the procedure set forth by HEW. Defendants have not developed a revised standard of need on any objective and equitable basis, and have not demonstrated that their new standard does not work a reduction in the content of the need standard which was in effect prior to § 402 (a)(23).

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs represented by Lee A. Albert, Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 401 West l17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10027; Of Counsel, Harold Edgar, Henry A. Freedman, Steven J. Cole, Sylvia Ann Law and Nancy Duff Levy; Carl Rachlin, National Welfare Rights Organization, 180 Park Row, New York, N.Y.; Martin Garbus, Roger Baldwin Foundation Of the American Civil Liberties Union, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y., 100I2; David Gilman, City-Wide Coordinating Committee of Welfare Groups, c/o MFY Legal Services, Inc., 759 10th Avenue, New York, N.Y.; Cesar Perales, Williamsburg Legal Services, 260 Broadway, Brooklyn, N.Y.; Harold J. Rothwax and Eric Hirsehhorn, MFY Legal Services, Inc., 320 East Third Street, New York, N.Y.; and Mort Cohen, South Brooklyn Legal Services, 152 Court Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201.
Docket Date
1970-06-22 05:00:00+00:00