Anderson v. Burson

Decision Date05 April 1968
Docket Number10882 and 10991.,Civ. A. No. 10443
Citation300 F. Supp. 401
PartiesMary Bell ANDERSON, Johnny Mae Williams, Earvie Miller, Margaret Butler, Ossie Thomas and Lorraine S. Washington, on behalf of themselves and all other mothers of needy dependent children similarly situated v. William H. BURSON, Director of Georgia Department of Family and Children Services et al. Susie BROWN, individually and on behalf of her minor children and grandchild v. William H. BURSON, Director, Georgia Department of Family and Children Services; Mrs. Mary Louise Maxwell, Director, Grady County Department of Family and Children Services; B. M. Lee, Mrs. Leonard Wells, Mrs. E. C. White, Mrs. Grady Harrison, Alto Sellers, members of Grady County Board of Family and Children Services; Individually and in their official capacities John Gardner, Sec. of Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare, Individually & in official capacity. Mary Bell ANDERSON, Johnny Mae Williams, Earvie Miller, Margaret Butler, Ossie Thomas and Lorraine S. Washington, on behalf of themselves and all other mothers of needy dependent children similarly situated, and Susie Brown, individually and on behalf of her minor children and grandchild v. Hon. John GARDNER, Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Wave Perry, Regional Representative of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

Howard Moore, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., C. B. King, Albany, Ga., Jack Greenberg, Charles Stephen Ralston, Charles H. Jones, Jr., and Michael Davidson, James T. Graham, Martin Garbus and Edward V. Sparer, Stephen Wizner, New York City, for plaintiffs Mary Bell Anderson, Susie Brown, and others.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for Mrs. Bruce Schaefer.

Perry, Walters, Langstaff & Lippitt, Albany, Ga., for Mrs. Dorothy Foreman, James Hall, John O. Pierson, Curtis Wilkerson, Randolph Champion, Jr. and Robert McCormick, Jr.

Carlisle & Chason, Cairo, Ga., for Mary Louise Maxwell, B. M. Lee, Mrs. Leonard Wells, Alto Sellers, Mrs. E. C. White, Mrs. Grady Harrison.

Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Slaton Clemmons, Asst. U. S. Atty., for John Gardner, Sec. of Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare.

Before BELL, Circuit Judge and MORGAN and SMITH, District Judges.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM:

These cases involve the employable mother regulation promulgated under the Georgia plan for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring certain portions of the regulation facially unconstitutional and as applied to them and other members of their class. They also sought injunctive relief with respect thereto. In Civil Action No. 10,991, ancillary relief was sought against Secretary Gardner and Regional Representative Perry of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare based on their approval of the Georgia regulation in question. The Secretary and Regional Representative were also made parties in Civil Actions Nos. 10,443 and 10,882. Honorable William H. Burson succeeded Mrs. Bruce Schaefer as Director of the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services and was substituted in her place and stead as a party defendant in Nos. 10,443 and 10,882.

The matters have been heard and are now ripe for final disposition. Upon consideration of the stipulated issues, facts, and exhibits together with the motions and memoranda of the parties and the arguments of counsel for the parties, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant William H. Burson is the director of the State Department of Family and Children Services in Georgia. All of the remaining defendants in Actions Nos. 10,443 and 10,882, except defendants Gardner and Perry, are officials of county boards of welfare and departments of welfare in Georgia, and as such are responsible for the implementation and operation of the state program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in their respective counties. Defendants Mary Louise Maxwell and Dorothy Foreman are directors of county departments of Family and Children Services, and as such are employees of the state department.

2. Defendant Burson, in his position as director, is responsible for the direct supervision and control of county departments and officials and has among his duties the promulgation, implementation, and interpretation of rules and regulations under which county officials administer the state program.

3. Defendant Burson, in his position as director, is responsible for developing a state plan for Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

4. In order to receive federal matching funds for assistance payments made as part of the state's AFDC program, the state plan must be submitted for approval to and approved by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, as provided by Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 601 et seq.

5. The State of Georgia has a currently approved plan for AFDC and is operating a program pursuant thereto which provides assistance payments to families with dependent children.

6. The state plan for AFDC includes a regulation, known as "the employable mother" regulation (Part III, Section V-C(3) (b) (2) of the Georgia Manual of Public Welfare Administration), which at the time of the initiation of these actions provided, in effect:

a. that a mother who is receiving assistance payments must accept available "suitable" employment subject to certain exceptions designed primarily to safeguard the well-being of her children;

b. that in those counties where seasonal employment exists, the county boards will designate such periods as periods of full-time employment; during such periods all applications for assistance are denied and all current cases are closed where the mother is subject to the condition that she must accept employment. Such applications are denied and closed regardless of whether a mother was in fact employed or had received a bona fide offer of employment;

c. that the burden of proof is upon the mother to show that suitable employment is not available;

d. that wages from "full-time" employment will not be supplemented by assistance payments regardless of the amount of those wages whereas wages from "part-time" or "irregular" employment may be supplemented; and contains other related provisions which need not be dealt with to dispose of these actions.

7. The state plan for AFDC provides that where unearned income, or income derived from part-time or irregular employment does not meet the full financial needs of the recipient, such income is supplemented with assistance payments.

8. Defendant John Gardner is the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; defendant Wave Perry is the administrative official in the Atlanta regional office of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to whom state plan material is initially submitted. In their official capacities, they, or their agents and employees, have approved the Georgia state plan which includes the employable mother regulation. As a result of that approval, federal funds have been given to Georgia for the administration of their AFDC program to the extent that approximately 75% of the funds expended by the State of Georgia have been from the Federal government.

9. Plaintiffs are mothers who, with their children, are eligible for assistance payments under the Georgia program except for the employable mother regulation.

10. Plaintiffs in Nos. 10,443 and 10,882 sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the state and local defendants for violation of their constitutional and statutory rights based upon the text and implementation of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 4, 1972
    ...418 (D. Alaska 1971); Acosta v. Swank, 312 F. Supp. 765 (M.D.Ill.1970); Lewis v. Stark, 312 F.Supp. 197 (N.D.Cal.1968); Anderson v. Burson, 300 F.Supp. 401 (D.Ga.1968); Russo v. Shapiro, 309 F. Supp. 385 Plaintiffs have attempted to distinguish Dandridge, supra, and similar cases saying tha......
  • Henry v. Betit
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Alaska
    • February 4, 1971
    ...and personal independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection. 13 See, e. g., Anderson v. Burson, 300 F. Supp. 401 (N.D.Ga.1968) where the court, employing the traditional standard of review, invalidated a state statute which denied assistance to mothe......
  • United Low Income, Inc. v. Fisher
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • December 29, 1972
    ...Understandably the district court did not view the favorable and arguably analogous pre-Dandridge and Macias holding in Anderson v. Burson, 300 F.Supp. 401 (N.D.Ga.1968) as creating a substantial issue. Given the state of the precedents and our unanimous conclusion, after careful considerat......
  • Waits v. Carleson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 19, 1973
    ...to their needs. (Williams v. Field, 9 Cir., 416 F.2d 483, 486, cert. den., 397 U.S. 1016, 90 S.Ct. 1252, 25 L.Ed.2d 431; Anderson v. Burson, D.C., 300 F.Supp. 401, 404; Vincent v. State of California, 22 Cal.App.3d 566, 572, 99 Cal.Rptr. The respondent dependent children are of a class who ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT