Alexander v. Silverman

• Decision Date: 25 April 1973
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 71-C-565.
• Citation: 356 F. Supp. 1179
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
• Parties: Willie ALEXANDER and Jacqueline Pinion et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arthur SILVERMAN et al., Defendants.

356 F. Supp. 1179

Willie ALEXANDER and Jacqueline Pinion et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arthur SILVERMAN et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 71-C-565.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

April 25, 1973.

Steven H. Steinglass and Richard M. Klein, Freedom Through Equality, Inc., Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.

James J. O'Donnell, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants Silverman, Pokorny, Geiger, and Haber.

Ward L. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for defendant Schmidt.

OPINION AND ORDER

REYNOLDS, Chief Judge.

The issue in this class action is whether welfare applicants are constitutionally entitled to a statement of reasons and an administrative hearing after their application for general welfare relief is denied. Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendant Silverman is the director of the Milwaukee County Department of Public Welfare (hereafter "DPW") which provides general relief to all applicants found eligible for such relief in accordance with Chapter 49 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Defendants Pokorny, Geiger, and Haber are other officials in the DPW. Although defendants provide those already receiving general relief with a statement of reasons and an administrative hearing on request before their general relief is reduced or terminated, they do not provide any statement of reasons or hearing to new applicants who are denied relief. Plaintiff Jacqueline Pinion was such a new applicant. Moreover, defendants admit that her application did not indicate on its face that she was ineligible for general relief. When denied relief, Miss Pinion unsuccessfully requested a written statement of reasons and a hearing. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, she moves for summary judgment contending that defendants' policy violates the due process requirements of the fourteenth amendment. I grant her motion.

The United States Supreme Court enunciated the principles that govern this case in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). Although the precise issue in Goldberg was the right of welfare recipients to a pre-termination hearing, the holdings that welfare benefits enjoy due process protection and that an individual's interest in receiving benefits outweighs the state's interest in summarily determining his eligibility support the position of the plaintiffs here.

The Goldberg Court rejected the argument that the due process protection which is afforded to "life, liberty, and property" did not extend to welfare benefits because they were granted as a privilege rather than as a right. Instead the Court included welfare benefits in a broad concept of "property," noting that such benefits were a "matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them." Goldberg, supra, at 262, 90 S.Ct. at 1017. It would be irrational to hold that an individual's entitlement to welfare is affected by whether he has been receiving welfare in the past.

Under Goldberg, I must, of course, balance the interests of the individual and the government to determine the characteristics of the procedures which due process requires. The Goldberg Court emphasized the obvious importance which the decision to grant or deny welfare benefits may have for an individual. An erroneous decision which denies relief to an eligible individual may deprive him of the means of subsistence. In short, such a person's interest in having a meaningful opportunity to point out errors to the decision-makers is overwhelming. Accordingly, the Court held that even providing a hearing after the decision reducing or terminating benefits was made would not constitute due process. Only a pre-termination hearing would suffice, so compelling was the interest of individual recipients in the uninterrupted flow of benefits.

In this case the interest of applicants in having a meaningful opportunity to point out errors to the decision-makers is just as overwhelming. Giving an applicant the right to a hearing before he is finally denied relief will increase the state's expenses but not to such a significant extent as to justify denying such a right, for here plaintiffs do not request a pre-denial hearing, as was in effect provided in Goldberg, but only a post-denial hearing. Even a post-denial hearing is not sought for all applicants refused relief but only for those, like plaintiffs, who submit applications which do not indicate on their face that they are clearly ineligible for relief. Taking into account the indirect costs to the state of providing the hearings requested—such as the tendency of administrators who must defend a decision denying relief to err on the side of granting relief, especially when the applicant is likely to request a hearing— the reasoning of Goldberg suggests that the plaintiffs' interest in having post-denial hearings outweighs the defendants' interest in avoiding them.

When administrative hearings are necessary, the administrators should be allowed considerable latitude in fashioning the format the hearings are to follow. They are undoubtedly more familiar than the courts with the factors determining eligibility. Not only are they more likely to know what to look for, but because of their experience with welfare applicants, they are also more likely to know how to look for it. Nevertheless, the following minimum elements required or suggested in Goldberg are necessary to make any administrative review meaningful:

1. A written statement containing...