Rodriguez v. Swank, No. 69 C 2615.
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois) |
| Writing for the Court | KILEY, Circuit , and WILL and DECKER |
| Citation | 318 F. Supp. 289 |
| Docket Number | No. 69 C 2615. |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1970 |
| Parties | Gladys RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of her minor children, Rafael, Francisco, William and Miguel Rodriguez, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Mrs. Loretha Smith, on behalf of her minor children, Steven Kelly, Debra Kelly and Raymond Kelly, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Harold O. SWANK, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, David Daniel, Director, Cook County Department of Public Aid, Edward J. Barrett, Cook County Comptroller, Defendants. |
318 F. Supp. 289
Gladys RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of her minor children, Rafael, Francisco, William and Miguel Rodriguez, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Mrs. Loretha Smith, on behalf of her minor children, Steven Kelly, Debra Kelly and Raymond Kelly, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
Harold O. SWANK, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, David Daniel, Director, Cook County Department of Public Aid, Edward J. Barrett, Cook County Comptroller, Defendants.
No. 69 C 2615.
United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.
September 23, 1970.
Wm. J. Scott, Atty. Gen., and Donald Carnow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for state defendants.
Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty. of Cook County, and Thomas Brannigan, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, Ill., for county defendants.
Before KILEY, Circuit Judge, and WILL and DECKER, District Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DECKER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the validity of a statewide regulation relating to the payment of benefits under the Illinois Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The action is brought pursuant to 42 U. S.C. § 1983; jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and (4), and declaratory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. The regulation challenged, Section 8255.1 of the Illinois Department of Public Aid Categorical Assistance Manual, provides that assistance payments for new applicants may not be made, with certain exceptions, for periods prior to the month in which the application is approved.1
The action is brought in two counts, both purporting to be class actions, by Mrs. Gladys Rodriguez, an AFDC recipient, and her minor children.2 The defendants are the Directors of the Illinois and Cook County Departments of Public Aid and the Cook County Comptroller. The complaint alleges that Mrs. Rodriguez applied for benefits on September 22, 1969, that the application was approved in December, 1969, but that no benefits were received for September, October or November, 1969, and that only partial benefits were received for December of that year. Because count 2 seeks an injunction restraining the enforcement
Count 2 incorporates many of the paragraphs of count 1 and alleges that certain persons who applied for AFDC benefits in September, 1969 received payments in September, October or November of that year, whereas Mrs. Rodriguez received no payments until December, 1969. It is alleged that the non-retroactivity provision of the Illinois regulation, which results in this differential treatment of applicants, amounts to unreasonable and capricious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs ask for a declaration that payment retroactive to the date of application is constitutionally required, and for an injunction restraining further enforcement of the Illinois regulation.
Motion to Dismiss as a Class Action.
The count 1 class includes all persons in Illinois eligible for AFDC assistance who are required by defendants to wait longer than 30 days after application for a determination of eligibility and receipt of their first assistance check. The count 2 class includes all applicants for AFDC in Illinois who meet statutory eligibility requirements when they apply but are denied benefits for the intervening period from the date of application to the month in which their grant is authorized. For reasons to be stated, we think these are proper class actions.4
A class action must satisfy the four threshold requirements specified in Rule 23(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.5 Although no estimate of the number of class members has been made, plaintiffs represent that the majority of AFDC applicants do not receive their first check within 30 days of application. For present
Second, there are questions of law common to the classes, such as interpretation of the Illinois and HEW regulations, determination of the binding nature of the HEW regulations, and determination of the constitutionality of the Illinois regulation. Third, the claims of the representative parties are typical of the class. The named plaintiffs' interest in the litigation differs from that of the class members only in the amount of retroactive payments involved, and thus their presentation of the evidence and arguments can be expected to be representative of the class. State of Illinois v. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 301 F.Supp. 484 (N.D.Ill.1969).
Defendants make much of the fact that the Illinois Public Aid Code, 23 Ill.Rev.Stat. § 4-1.3, sets out numerous alternate criteria for eligibility for AFDC, such as death, physical incapacity, or unemployment of a parent. Defendants' argument is apparently that because the named plaintiffs do not represent all of the possible eligibility criteria their claims are not typical of those of the entire class. This argument is without merit, however, for it ignores the fact that the complaint defines the classes to include only eligible applicants. The reasons for eligibility are not in issue, nor does the cause of action depend in any way upon the kind of eligibility involved. Consequently, the failure of these plaintiffs to exemplify each sub-class within the Illinois statute is irrelevant. Moreover, similar class actions have been allowed when less than all possible kinds of eligible welfare recipients were named plaintiffs. See, e. g., Johnson v. Robinson, 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D.Ill.1967), aff'd 394 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 1622, 23 L.Ed.2d 30 (1969); Denny v. Health and Social Services Board, 285 F.Supp. 526 (E.D.Wis.1968).
Finally, we conclude that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The named plaintiffs have a sufficiently large economic stake in the proceedings to insure diligent and thorough prosecution of the litigation. See Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humana of South Carolina, Inc. v. Califano, Nos. 76-1953
...O'Neil, Unconstitutional Conditions: Welfare Benefits with Strings Attached, 54 Cal.L.Rev. 443 (1966). 102 See Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289, 296 (N.D.Ill.1970), Aff'd, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 (1971) ("Congress might reasonably have concluded that greater flexibili......
-
Jordan v. Weaver, No. 72-1380
...448 F.2d 798, 802-805 (8th Cir. 472 F.2d 997 1971), certiorari denied, 405 U.S. 1045, 92 S.Ct. 1308, 31 L.Ed.2d 558; Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289, 295-296 (N.D.Ill.1971), affirmed, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d Effective Date for Assistance Plaintiffs contend that AABD bene......
-
Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. TVA, Civ. A. No. 78-3210-NA-CV.
...462 F. Supp. 476 on nonpublication in the Federal Register. Whelan v. Brinegar, 538 F.2d 924, 927 (2d Cir. 1976); Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289, 295 (N.D.Ill.1970) (3-judge court), aff'd, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 9. Also, even if the flexible manner in which TVA con......
-
Hendrix v. Faulkner, No. S 76-187
...plaintiffs have a vital personal stake in the outcome of the case so as to insure zealous pursuit of the action. Rodriquez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289 (N.D.Ill.1970), aff'd, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 The second element of adequate representation is that the named plaintiffs'......
-
Humana of South Carolina, Inc. v. Califano, Nos. 76-1953
...O'Neil, Unconstitutional Conditions: Welfare Benefits with Strings Attached, 54 Cal.L.Rev. 443 (1966). 102 See Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289, 296 (N.D.Ill.1970), Aff'd, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 (1971) ("Congress might reasonably have concluded that greater flexibili......
-
Jordan v. Weaver, No. 72-1380
...448 F.2d 798, 802-805 (8th Cir. 472 F.2d 997 1971), certiorari denied, 405 U.S. 1045, 92 S.Ct. 1308, 31 L.Ed.2d 558; Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289, 295-296 (N.D.Ill.1971), affirmed, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d Effective Date for Assistance Plaintiffs contend that AABD bene......
-
Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. TVA, Civ. A. No. 78-3210-NA-CV.
...462 F. Supp. 476 on nonpublication in the Federal Register. Whelan v. Brinegar, 538 F.2d 924, 927 (2d Cir. 1976); Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289, 295 (N.D.Ill.1970) (3-judge court), aff'd, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 9. Also, even if the flexible manner in which TVA con......
-
Hendrix v. Faulkner, No. S 76-187
...plaintiffs have a vital personal stake in the outcome of the case so as to insure zealous pursuit of the action. Rodriquez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289 (N.D.Ill.1970), aff'd, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 The second element of adequate representation is that the named plaintiffs'......