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
Bauer v. Rasmussen
No. S-99-714 (Neb. Sup. Ct. Jan. 4, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53843
Description
AmeriCorps Stipend Is Not Income Under Nebraska’s Welfare Reform Act
Abstract
The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that plaintiff’s AmeriCorps
stipend fell into the category of “other
self-sufficiency-related expenses” under state law and was
not countable income for purposes of eligibility for cash
assistance. Plaintiff was an unemployed full-time college student
with custody of three grandchildren when she began receiving aid.
After plaintiff’s caseworker told her that the stipend would
not be considered income, plaintiff entered into a one-year
contract with AmeriCorps. Relying on a 1994 state agency
memorandum, defendant welfare agency then reversed this
determination,; it reduced plaintiff’s benefits, and
plaintiff lost health coverage. Plaintiff’ argued that the
state’s Welfare Reform Act did not count the stipend as
income. Relying on the 1994 memorandum and failing to cite the
statutory provision, defendant ruled against her. The lower court
affirmed, noting that the stipend was “similar” to
items listed as exempt in the statute but deferring to
defendant’s interpretation of the regulations. The supreme
court found the statutory language ambiguous and so looked to the
legislative purpose and the statute as a whole. It ruled that the
provision upon which plaintiff relied “covers financial
assistance provided in connection with further education …,
which would include the AmeriCorps U.S.A. stipend.” While
this interpretation conflicted with the 1994 memorandum, that
document was entitled to little weight because it preceded and thus
could not interpret the Welfare Reform Act. The court said that its
interpretation was consistent with the statutory purpose of
removing disincentives to work and promoting economic
self-sufficiency.
