The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.
New York Probate Lawyers found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.
According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer said. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.
There are two things that may have gone wrong. The person may have been incorrectly classified or correctly classified but put in the wrong assignment. If a recipient feels that they should not be employable there is a hearing that they can request to determine this. From the information aquired by a Queens Probate Lawyer from the city, the process is included in the notices sent to the recipient after they have been classified.
The medical condition of the beneficiary is not accommodated. The notice states that unless the person requests a hearing within 10 days of receiving the notice, she must continue with the assignment. A named plaintiff, in fact, says that she received her notice without any indication in how to dispute assignments. With her notice, she received an assignment for a maintenance job. She is considered incompatible with this as she has respiratory problems. She requested a hearing before going to the job site so as not to miss the 10-day grace period. The city then said she cannot go on review yet because she is not assigned a specific task yet.
The doctor’s findings are sent in the second notice. The Physician Assessment of Client Employability (PACE) report is the documentation that a beneficiary can bring to a work site to show her limitation. It still does not say anything about the participants’ procedural rights.
The next notice that a beneficiary received contains where they will be assigned. It can be a government office, public park, etc. It does not contain though what specific assignment they would get. The city administrators say this cannot be specified as the work is assigned depending on what that department needs day to day.
The last one that they receive is an orientation manual. It states that they can contest their employability status. It still does not discuss how they can dispute certain assignments. It states that PACE should expressly state that they are unable to work.
The city says that any issue with the job assignment should first be raised with the work-site supervisor and coordinator and then the Participant Services Unit. Only after that they can request a hearing with the city. They state that the proper way is to know what the assignment is first then utilize the current mechanisms available then seek a fair hearing where they still get aid without working.
The court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Not only, with the notices but also on providing a way on how they can dispute an assignment. Being forced to do an incompatible assignment while the case is being tried is also something that they had made clear to change. With regard to remedy, the court granted the defendants claim to convert it to the remedies available.
Even on welfare, a person has rights. It does not mean that you are on welfare, and you do not need to be treated fairly. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can make sure that your rights are upheld, and you get an impartial treatment, in welfare or at a regular work.
Whether you are in a dispute with a governmental agency, or are involved in an estate litigation or trust administration proceeding, it is important to speak with legal counsel to ensure that your rights are protected. Call us today to schedule your free consultation.