Gaddis v. Wyman

• Decision Date: 22 September 1969
• Docket Number: No. 69 Civ. 258,69 Civ. 2921.,69 Civ. 258
• Citation: 304 F. Supp. 717
• Parties: Luretha GADDIS, individually, on behalf of her minor children, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, and Willa Jean Manning, Annie Bell McAllister and Ruth Mickle, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. George K. WYMAN, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services for the State of New York, and Louis P. Kurtis, individually and as Commissioner of Westchester County Department of Social Services, Defendants. Ossie BOWENS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. George K. WYMAN, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, and John Lascaris, Commissioner of the Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

304 F. Supp. 717

Luretha GADDIS, individually, on behalf of her minor children, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, and Willa Jean Manning, Annie Bell McAllister and Ruth Mickle, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. George K. WYMAN, individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services for the State of New York, and Louis P. Kurtis, individually and as Commissioner of Westchester County Department of Social Services, Defendants.

Ossie BOWENS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. George K. WYMAN, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, and John Lascaris, Commissioner of the Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Defendants.

Nos. 69 Civ. 258, 69 Civ. 2921.

United States District Court S. D. New York United States District Court N. D. New York.

September 22, 1969.

The Legal Aid Society of Westchester County for plaintiff and plaintiffs-intervenors in Gaddis case; Bernard Clyne, and Antone G. Singsen, III, White Plains, N. Y., of counsel.

Onondaga Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc. for plaintiff Ossie Bowens; Richard A. Ellison, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York for defendant Commissioner Wyman; by Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Maria L. Marcus, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.

Gordon Miller, County Atty. of the County of Westchester, White Plains, N. Y., for defendant Commissioner Kurtis; Richard W. McAtamney, Senior Asst. County Atty., White Plains, N. Y., of counsel.

Leonard C. Koldin, Onondaga County Welfare Atty., Syracuse, N. Y., for Commissioner Lascaris.

Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law amicus curiae by Lee A. Albert, New York City; Lucy Katz, New York City, of counsel.

Before WATERMAN, Circuit Judge, and PORT^* and MANSFIELD,^** District Judges.

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in the above two class actions are applicants for public assistance administered by the New York State Department of Social Services pursuant to the cooperative federal-state program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC" herein), Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 601-610; N.Y. Social Services Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 55, § 343. They have at various times been refused such aid by New York State and County Social Services officials, even though otherwise eligible, because of failure to comply with § 139-a of New York's Social Services Law, which presumes that anyone applying for such assistance within one year after arrival in New York came into the state for the purpose of receiving such assistance and requires New York Social Services officials to deny such an application unless the applicant can establish "by clear and convincing proof that the purpose of his or her entry was not for the purpose of securing public assistance and care in this state."¹ In at least one case (Willa Jean Manning) free transportation back to the plaintiff's state of origin has been offered by Social Services officials pursuant to § 121 of the Social Services Law, which authorizes the State Department of Social Services, where a recipient of public assistance has legally responsible relatives or friends willing to aid in supporting him in another state, to furnish transportation to such other state.²

The present class actions challenge the validity of § 139-a as violative of both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and regulations promulgated by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare under the Social Security Act. The Gaddis complaint also attacks § 121 on the same grounds. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments and preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining enforcement of the laws under attack. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to various federal statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4) (actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983), §§ 2201 and 2202 (declaratory judgments) and § 2281 and § 2284 (3-judge district courts). Defendants have cross-moved pursuant to Rule 12(b), F.R.Civ.P., for dismissal of the Gaddis complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Pursuant to Rules 23 and 24, F.R.C.P., three additional plaintiffs (Willa Jean Manning, Annie Bell McAllister and Ruth Mickle) were permitted to intervene as named plaintiffs in the Gaddis action after an issue was raised as to the standing of Luretha Gaddis to sue and represent the class in the action instituted by her. See district court decision filed August 7, 1969, 304 F.Supp 713. Since both lawsuits raise identical constitutional questions of substance, we were appointed a three-judge district court in each case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, and, with a view to avoiding duplication of effort, the actions were consolidated for purposes of hearing and determination.³

For the reasons hereinafter stated plaintiffs' motion is granted as to § 139-a and denied as to § 121; and defendants' motion to dismiss the Gaddis complaint insofar as it seeks to attack § 121 is granted.

The essential facts relevant to the legal issues before us are not in dispute. Each of the five plaintiffs is an indigent mother of dependent children who moved to New York from another state and within one year after establishing residence in New York applied to the Department of Social Services in the county of her newly established residence for public assistance pursuant to the AFDC program. Applying § 139-a defendants denied such assistance, the denial in the case of Annie Bell McAllister following a period of several months during which assistance payments were made to her. In the case of Luretha Gaddis, such assistance was denied in May and June, 1969, since which time payments have been made. More detailed facts with respect to each of the five cases are set forth in the margin.⁴

By stipulation some of the plaintiffs have received temporary emergency assistance pursuant to § 350-j, N.Y. Social Services Law, which authorizes emergency assistance to needy families for a period up to 30 days regardless of their qualifications for permanent assistance. When it appeared upon argument that such emergency assistance had expired or was about to expire and that serious and irreparable harm would be suffered by some of the named plaintiffs unless immediate assistance was forthcoming, we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants, pending determination of the issues before us, from denying assistance to such plaintiffs because of failure to comply with the requirements of § 139-a.

At the outset we reaffirm that upon the facts before us the prerequisites established by Rule 23, F.R.C.P., for conduct of the actions as class suits are present. It is not disputed that numerous indigent persons have applied for and continue to apply for home relief or aid to dependent children within one year after establishing residence in New York, which brings § 139-a into play. Questions of law and defenses common to this class are presented, and the representation of the parties by the Legal Aid Society of Westchester County and the Onondaga Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc., coupled with amicus curiae interest on the part of the Columbia Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, assures adequate protection of the class.

It is equally apparent that neither action has been mooted by intervening grants of assistance to certain applicants and the fulfillment of one-year's residence in New York on the part of others. There remain plaintiffs (Manning, Mickle and Bowens) against whom § 139-a will continue to be invoked for a substantial period of time unless relief is granted, and a dispute exists as to denial of aid to Mrs. Gaddis for May and June, 1969. Upon argument counsel for plaintiffs in the Gaddis suit further informed the Court of the existence of other applicants denied aid on the basis of § 139-a who are presumably ready to step into the shoes of any named plaintiff forced to withdraw. Dismissal for mootness would therefore not be warranted. Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F.Supp. 887, 890 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (per Bryan, J.), and 294 F.Supp. 893, 908 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (per Feinberg, C. J., three-judge court).

Turning to the merits, a dispute exists between the parties as to the manner in which § 139-a has been applied. Defendants contend that the statute is invoked to bar assistance only to those whose sole purpose in entering the state is to obtain public assistance, whereas plaintiffs assert that in actual practice it is used as the basis for refusing aid to a resident of less than a year even though the applicant had other purposes in mind upon entry, such as obtaining employment in the cases of plaintiffs Gaddis, McAllister and Mickle. We find it unnecessary to resolve the issue, however, for the reason that even if § 139-a is construed as urged by defendants, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (April 21, 1969), dictates that it be declared unconstitutional on its face. In that case the Court held that state statutes denying public assistance to applicants who had not resided in such states for at least one year, violated the Equal Protection Clause by drawing an invidious distinction between those who resided in the state for more than a year and those who had not, which infringed upon the latter's constitutional right to travel and could not be justified either under the traditional standard of bearing a reasonable relationship to a legislative purpose, see McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-427, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961), or the stricter standard of promoting a "compelling state interest," see Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 668, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966); McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964). Prior to Shapiro the Court had nullified similar state laws as violative of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, and (in...