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
Smith v. Wing
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York County July 31, 1997) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52223
Description
Welfare Recipient Must Participate in Workfare Program That Conflicts with Independently Arranged Educational Program
Abstract
The court has held that petitioner welfare recipient may not avoid
the requirements of the state’s Work Experience Program (WEP)
even though participating in WEP will interfere with her ability to
attend school. Petitioner is a high school graduate who has been
trained as a customer service worker and paralegal and has worked
as an administrative assistant and stenographer-secretary. After
respondent city agency notified petitioner that she would be
required to take a work assignment of 26 hours per week as a
condition of continuing to receive home relief, she informed her
caseworker that she is a full-time student and would be unable to
work on Mondays, Wednesdays, or Fridays because of her class
schedule. The agency refused to conform her work assignment to her
school schedule, and she appealed. The court found that
petitioner’s educational efforts should be applauded.
Nevertheless, the court held that public assistance is not
available to train people capable of obtaining available employment
to train for a new line of work. In so ruling, the court rejected
petitioner’s argument that the agency acted arbitrarily
because it had failed to develop an employability plan for her. The
court found that petitioner’s unswerving position that her
participation in the WEP program must fit into her school schedule
rendered the completion of an employability plan a wasted effort.
