Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Franklin v. Kelly
No. 90-3124-SS (D.D.C. July 28, 1994) ; Clearinghouse Number: 46308
Description
District Court Orders Special Master to Monitor District of Columbia’s Compliance with Food Stamp Act for Two Years
Abstract
The district court has entered an order regarding the submission of
monitoring reports and the award of attorney fees in this class
action challenging the District of Columbia’s administration
of its Food Stamp Program. Plaintiff food stamp applicants and
recipients had alleged that the District violated the Food Stamp
Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e), by engaging in practices that
discourage or prevent the filing of applications, failing to
provide information and assistance to homeless persons and to AFDC
recipients who are categorically eligible for expedited assistance,
and delaying the processing of applications. The special master,
who was appointed by the court recommended (1) streamlining the
screening of applicants for expedited issuance; (2) expediting the
photo identification card process or dispensing with this
requirement; (3) adapting and employing the Pennsylvania Food Stamp
Handbook; (4) standardizing processing of certain forms; (5)
increasing staff to authorized levels and finding methods to
motivate workers; and (6) conducting compliance monitoring studies.
Subsequently, the special master informed the court that certain
issues appeared to be hindering settlement. Accordingly, the court
ordered the District to submit to the special master and
plaintiffs’ counsel compliance monitoring reports of such
nature and with such frequency as prescribed by the special master.
The reporting requirement shall expire two years from the date of
submission of the first report, unless plaintiffs formally request
that compliance monitoring continue. The court also ordered the
parties to submit any disputes and allegations concerning
noncompliance to the special master for resolution. Finally, the
court ordered plaintiffs to present their claims for attorney fees
to the special master for his review and consideration. The court
stated that, after giving due weight to the special master’s
recommendation, it would award counsel fees to be paid by the
District if, and in such amount, it deems appropriate.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
