Legal Services Gets Federal Disability for Drug Addict
In May, the San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Association
won its lawsuit overturning the government’s denial of federal disability
to a drug addict. Legal Assistance argued that the government wrongly rejected
Theresa Griffith’s application for Supplemental Security Income on the
basis of her drug addiction. The government said her addiction was not
disabling enough to prevent her from working. Griffith hasn’t worked since
1993. However, Legal Assistance argued that Griffith’s failure to complete
four drug rehab programs and inability to stay sober for any extended length
of time proved she was too disabled to work. Legal Assistance also noted
that she was abusing drugs and alcohol only one week before the court hearing.
A federal district judge agreed and reversed the denial of Griffith’s request
for disability. Although Congress passed a law in 1996 denying disability
based on alcohol or drug addiction, legal services lawyers can still handle
cases if the denial of benefits predated the law’s enactment.
See Griffith v. Chater, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N. Cal.), 1997
Man Gets Federal Disability Because of Alcoholism and Arrest Record
In April, 1997, the Legal Services Organization of Indiana won a lawsuit
requiring the federal government to give disability benefits to an alcoholic.
LSOI filed the suit after officials denied the man’s application for Social
Security Supplemental Income. LSOI lawyers argued that their client was
incapable of working due to his chronic alcoholism. In addition, LSOI claimed
that his inability to hold a steady job and criminal arrest record showed
that he was legitimately disabled. A state court ruled for legal services
and ordered that the man be allowed to receive disability pay.
See Pruitt v. Chater, S.D. Ind., 1997
Long Beach Legal Aid Threatens to Sue City For Curbing Homeless
The Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach is threatening to sue Long Beach
for adopting an ordinance to control the number of homeless people and
drug addicts in the city. Responding to complaints from residents and businesses,
the city council passed a law in March to cap the number of social services
agencies in the downtown area. Besides the homeless, these agencies serve
large numbers of alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally ill and paroled
criminals. Some of these people intimidate and harass residents. The council
views the moratorium as a temporary measure while it devises a new zoning
plan that would more equitably disperse the agencies throughout the city.
However, Legal Aid says it violates federal fair housing laws, the Americans
With Disabilities Act and state laws prohibiting discrimination based on
income. Legal Aid has sent a letter to the city demanding that the law
be revoked. Frustrated residents say all they want is to restore some order
to their neighborhoods. They complain that vagrants often knock on their
doors asking for food and steal their property. Says one resident, “I am
tired of dealing with addicts.”
See Douglas Shuit, “A Look Ahead,” Los Angeles Times, July 14,
1997, pg. B1
Legal Services Sues State for Not Awarding it Federal Grant
Legal Services of Northern California recently lost a lawsuit against
the State of California for refusing to give it additional federal money.
The case began in 1994 when the California Department of Aging awarded
a non-LSC federal grant to a seniors program over LSNC. The money was awarded
under the Older Americans Act (OAA) which has established a system of federal
grants for states and community social services agencies to assist needy
older persons. However, LSNC immediately filed a lawsuit to force the state
to give it the money. LSNC lawyers argued that the OAA program was
created for the benefit of programs like itself and that it is illegal
to deprive LSNC of its rightful money. However, a federal appeals court
dismissed Legal Services self-serving arguments. The court ruled that the
program was was estlablished “for the benefit of elders in need of services
rather than for the benefit of each group which competes for a grant.”
See Legal Services of Northern California v. Arnett, 114 F.3d
135, U.S. App. Ct., 1997
CRLA Sues School District Electoral System
In 1995, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) attempted to overturn
the electoral system for an Imperial County school district. CRLA alleged
that the at-large voting system for the El Centro Elementary School District
Board of Trustees violated the voting rights of Hispanics. However, the
court rejected CRLA’s claim that at-large voting was discriminatory. The
court noted that Hispanic’s ability to elect their preferred candidates
is actually increasing under the at-large system due to the dramatic increase
in the Hispanic population. In an attempt to rebut this evidence, CRLA
argued that one of the winning Hispanic candidates cited by the court as
benefiting from at-large voting wasn’t really Hispanic but a Spanish Basque.
The court handily rejected the argument because the candidate insisted
upon identifying himself as Hispanic.
See Aldasoro v. Imperial County, 922 F. Supp., U.S. Dist. Ct.,
1995