Ward v. Smaby, s. C7-86-1174
| Decision Date | 05 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | C6-86-1280,Nos. C7-86-1174,s. C7-86-1174 |
| Citation | 405 N.W.2d 254 |
| Parties | Guy T. WARD, et al., Appellants, v. Jan I. SMABY, in her official capacity as Director of the Hennepin County Department of Economic Assistance and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, and Leonard W. Levine, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, defendant-intervenor, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Hennepin County substantially complied with the Work Readiness statute and rules.
2. Hennepin County did not violate equal protection or due process in terminating appellants from the Work Readiness program.
3. Notices used by Hennepin County were adequate and did not violate due process.
4. The trial court was correct in denying class certification and in denying intervention of an additional plaintiff.
M. Francesca Chervenak, Laurie N. Davison, Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, Inc., Minneapolis, for Ward, et al.
Thomas Johnson, Hennepin Co. Atty., Robert Gyurci, Asst. Hennepin Co. Atty., Minneapolis, for Jan I. Smaby.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., John L. Kirwin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Leonard W. Levine.
Heard, considered and decided by LANSING, P.J., and WOZNIAK, and NIERENGARTEN, JJ.
Appellants Gary Ward and Raymond Baker were terminated from the Hennepin County Work Readiness (WR) program. They sued Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Human Services seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, and moved for class certification, as well as intervention of a third plaintiff. Judgment was granted for respondents on all claims. Ward and Baker appeal the denials of their motions for class certification, intervention, a new trial and additional findings, and from judgment. Respondents cross-appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss. We affirm.
The General Assistance (GA) program is a welfare program designed to provide for people who lack the income to insure a "subsistence reasonably compatible with decency and health." Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.01, subd. 1 (1984). Prior to August 1, 1985, any person whose income and resources were less than the level established by law and who were not eligible for other forms of assistance, were entitled to GA benefits. Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.05, subd. 1 (1984).
In 1985 the Minnesota Legislature created the Work Readiness program effective August 1, 1985. This legislation changed the GA eligibility requirements so that persons whose income and resources fell below the standard were eligible for GA only if they fell into one of fourteen categories designed to identify persons who are unemployable. Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.05, subd. 1 (Supp.1985). Persons who meet the income and resource requirements for GA but do not fall into one of the fourteen categories are eligible for the Work Readiness program. Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 1 (Supp.1985).
The WR program provides financial assistance and services to develop basic job search skills. Each county was to design a program and provide specific employment services. Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 2 (Supp.1985). Each WR registrant is entitled to receive cash assistance equal to GA benefits during the period they are eligible for WR. Id. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 1.
The WR program requires the local agency to provide a work readiness program which includes:
(1) an employability assessment and development plan in which the local agency estimates the length of time it will take the registrant to obtain employment;
(2) referral to available employment assistance programs including the Minnesota employment and economic development program;
(3) a job search program; and
(4) other activities designed by the local agency to prepare the registrant for permanent employment.
All WR participants are eligible for two months of assistance. Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.051, subds. 1, 4. During the second month of WR, the county must conduct an assessment and determine if a registrant is eligible for four more months of assistance. Id. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 4. To be eligible the county must find that a registrant (1) has borderline mental retardation; or (2) exhibits perceptible symptoms of mental illness; or (3) is unable to secure suitable employment because the person lives in a distressed county or the county has determined there are no jobs available that a person with the registrant's history, ability and skills can perform. Id. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 5. If a registrant is not eligible under one of the above categories at the two month assessment, he or she must be terminated at the end of the second month. Id. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 4. A registrant who is ineligible for an additional four months will not be eligible to participate in the program again for twenty-two months. Registrants who are eligible for an additional four months can receive a maximum of six months of benefits in any consecutive twelve month period. Id. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 5.
Emergency rules were promulgated by the Department of Human Services to implement the WR program. Under these rules, the registrant must cooperate with the county in the two-month assessment. See 10 Minn.Reg. 926 (Emergency Rules 9500.1216, subp. 1). Persons who fail to comply with requirements of the WR program may be terminated and will not be eligible for a period of two months for WR assistance they would otherwise be eligible for. Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 3. The rules provide a specific procedure for disqualifying a person who has failed to comply. The county must notify the registrant and state the following information: (1) the specific requirement the registrant failed to comply with and facts supporting the county's determination; (2) what the registrant must do to comply and a specific deadline for compliance (15 days minimum); (3) that the registrant will be disqualified from receiving payments and services if he or she fails to comply; and (4) that the registrant may request and will be granted a conference to discuss the notice. See 10 Minn.Reg. 311, 927 (Emergency Rules 9500.1218, subp. 1).
If the registrant fails to comply by the specified date, the agency must evaluate the registrant and determine if he or she is eligible for GA. If eligible, the registrant will be terminated from WR and placed on GA. If not eligible and the registrant has failed, without good cause, to comply with WR and subsequently failed to take the required action after notice, that person will be disqualified for a period of 60 days. Registrants will receive notice of this which contains a notification of their right to appeal. See 10 Minn.Reg. 311-12, 927-28 (Emergency Rules 9500.1218, subps. 2, 3, 4).
The legislature required the WR program to take effect August 1, 1985. However, at the beginning of August a temporary injunction was issued preventing local agencies from terminating GA recipients and referring them to WR until the agency properly assessed each one for GA eligibility under the 14 eligibility categories. See Evans v. Levine, Ramsey County Dist.Ct. No. 473662 (August 9, 1985). As a result, Hennepin County notified all persons who had been terminated from GA and referred to WR in July that their participation in WR was voluntary. After each recipient was assessed, those ineligible for GA were sent a notice of the County's determination and informed that participation in the WR program was mandatory in order to receive benefits. As a result of the Evans injunction, those terminated from GA in July and who elected to participate in WR did not become mandatory WR participants until October 1, 1985.
A registrant in Hennepin County's WR program receives a Notification of Applicants Rights and Responsibilities. The program consists of three mandatory sessions plus the opportunity to take advantage of job search aids such as phone banks, job listings and help with applications and resumes.
The first mandatory session is Orientation where the registrant receives a notice describing the program and the responsibilities of the participant. An enrollment form, indicating prior work history, becomes part of the file.
The second session, known as the Employability Development Plan (EDP), is a group session conducted by two vocational counselors. Participants complete forms on three job strengths, three job weaknesses and three job goals which are placed in their file.
During the second month of WR participation, registrants are scheduled for a two-month assessment to determine eligibility for four more months of benefits. At this session the participants complete a Work Readiness Evaluation and fill out a form recording any time spent looking for a job. WR personnel then determine whether a registrant continues on the WR program for four more months, is eligible for GA (usually by scoring less than an 8th grade level on the literacy test) or is terminated from WR.
All registrants who attended the two-month assessment were either continued on WR or determined eligible for GA. Prior to February 1, 1986, all registrants who did not attend their assessments were terminated from WR unless they had previously been identified as mentally ill or mentally retarded. Prior to March 1, 1986, if the registrant showed up for the assessment, he or she was continued on WR, and if the registrant failed to show up, he or she was terminated. Those not continued on WR prior to October 25, 1985 were given a Notice of Decision and Termination which listed failure to cooperate as the reason for failure to qualify for four additional months. After October 25, 1985, the reason given for failure to qualify was "Not Eligible for Any Category" which referred to the categories in Minn.Stat. Sec. 256D.051, subd. 5.
Guy Ward is thirty years old and has been a GA recipient for some time. In July 1985, Ward received a notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schaber v. Ramsey Cnty.
... ... regard to the court's jurisdiction over other potential ... class members. See Ward v. Smaby , 405 N.W.2d 254, ... 261-62 (Minn.App. 1987) (affirming district court's ... ...
-
Mammenga v. State Dept. of Human Services
...they must spend substantial time on specified activities (such as schooling) which preclude employment. See generally Ward v. Smaby, 405 N.W.2d 254 (Minn.App.1987). Having a secondary school education would be valuable in obtaining employment and, therefore, the legislature provided that a ......