Besides being aggressive advocates of expanded welfare entitlements,
Ohio recipients of federal legal services funding engage in other questionable
litigation including challenges to drug testing for police officers.
Cleveland Sued for Giving Police Cadets Drug Tests
In 1986, the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland sued the City of Cleveland for requiring police cadets to submit to a drug test. The case began in 1985 when the Chief of Police decided to administer a surprise test to cadets at the Cleveland Police Academy after receiving a tip that some were using drugs. Six cadets were found to have smoked marijuana and were forced to resign from the program. Legal Aid then filed suit charging that the drug test violated those individuals’ constitutional rights. Legal Aid claimed that the drug test used was not the most reliable test available and that discharging cadets based on its results violated their rights to due process. However, in 1993 an appeals court rejected the argument because other tests confirmed the first test’s findings. The court also noted that “drug tests bear a reasonable relation to the legitimate government interest of preventing police officers, who are charged with the job of drug interdiction, from abusing illegal drugs.”
See Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 988 F.2d 649, US App.
Ct., 1993
Legal Services Asserts Constitutional Right to Welfare
In 1992, legal services sued the state of Ohio claiming that its reduction
of welfare benefits to employable adults was unconstitutional under federal
and state law. Under the state’s General Assistance program, Ohio provided
healthy, employable adults with no children $148 a month plus medical assistance
for as long as they needed it. To control costs, the state changed the
program to limit such adults to $100 monthly benefits for no more than
six months out of the year. Individuals who were too old or too young or
suffered disabilities would still receive continuous coverage. However,
the Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati and the Legal Aid Society of Dayton
argued that the Ohio Constitution’s guarantee of individuals’ right to
seek “happiness and safety,” meant that the state was constitutionally
obligated to provide public assistance so that individuals may enjoy a
minimum level of safety. A state appellate court rejected legal services’
expansive interpretation of the Constitution. The court noted that were
it to accept legal services interpretation, the government would have to
provide each citizen a minimal enjoyment of life, a minimal amount of property,
and a minimal level of happiness and safety. The court called that an “untenable”
interpretation.
See Daugherty v. Wallace, 87 Ohio App. 3d 228, Ohio App. Ct.,
1993
Advocates Excessive Welfare Payments
In 1992, the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland sued the US Department of
Agriculture because it counted individuals’ utility assistance payments
as income in determining their eligibility for Food Stamps. Under the Utility
Reimbursement program, residents of public housing are given Utility
Allowances (UA) which are used to pay their utility expenses by reducing
their rent. For example, a public housing tenant, with a UA of $100
and a rent of $150, pays only $50 in rent. Frequently, however, the
UA is more than the rent and tenants actually gain additional income. For
instance, a household that pays $75 in rent not only owes no rent
but is given a $25 credit to spend as they see fit. The USDA counts the
money gained from such allowances as extra income in calculating Food Stamp
eligibility. Legal Aid said it was unlawful to include UA-generated income
because it wasn’t clear that the money technically benefited the household.
A federal appeals court said UAs do increase a household’s income and ruled
against Legal Aid.
See Baum v. Madigan, 979 F.2d 438, US App. Ct., 1992
Hospital Threatened With Suit
In 1995, the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland threatened to sue a hospital
for trying to save money by restricting the use of its outpatient pharmacies
to the medically indigent. Cleveland’s MetroHealth Medical Center decided
to close its outpatient pharmacies to the medically insured and those able
to pay to reduce a $5 million budget shortfall. By limiting access to the
uninsured and neediest, the hospital would save $2 to $3 million. However,
Legal Aid claimed that this move violated a federal law that requires hospitals
to provide a certain level of charity care. Legal Aid argued that cutting
off outpatient services to the insured while maintaining access for the
medically indigent somehow violated that charity provision. Hospital spokesmen
said that the “horrible irony” is that if Legal Aid is successful they
would have to close down the pharmacy completely to the poor and non-poor
alike.
See Joan Mazzolini, “Complaint Aims to Bar Closure of Pharmacies,”
The Plain Dealer, March 1, 1995, pg. 1B
Sues INS for Not Paying Minimum Wage to Alien Detainees
In 1990, Southeastern Ohio Legal Services participated in a lawsuit
against the Immigration and Naturalization Services for not paying illegal
aliens minimum wage for menial labor performed while incarcerated at INS
detention facilities. As part of the detention program, the Port
Isabel Processing Center in Harlingen, Texas regularly offered work to
detainees doing grounds maintenance, cleaning, cooking, laundry and other
services. The work was strictly voluntary and paid $1 a day. Legal services
claimed this violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and demanded relief
in the form of unpaid minimum wages for the workers and attorneys’
fees for themselves. A US Appeals Court in Texas rejected the claim because
minimum wage laws apply only to US workers and not to prisoners or illegal
aliens in INS facilities.
See Guevara v. INS, 902 F.2d 394, US App. Ct., 1990