The federally funded Legal Services Corporation of North Carolina and
its various divisions continue to pursue litigation that does little to
assist the poor. Instead, these groups spend a large amount of taxpayer-provided
money on cases that advance liberal causes, such as opposition to nuclear
energy, expanding federal disability laws and thwarting rational education
policies.
North Carolina Legal Services Groups Sued Federal Goverment to Prevent Storage of Nuclear Waste in South Carolina
Together with the South Carolina attorney general, two North Carolina Legal Services programs, North State Legal Services and Lumbee River Legal Services, served as counsel in a 1995 lawsuit brought against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and several international organizations. The lawsuit sought to prevent DOE from storing spent fuel rods from European nuclear reactors at a DOE facility in South Carolina. The complaint filed against DOE claimed that the agency had violated federal environmental laws by failing to perform an Environmental Impact Statement on the potential environmental effects of storing the nuclear material. The trial court agreed with the South Carolina attorney general and the Legal Services groups that DOE had not performed an adequate environmental assessment. On appeal, however, the trial court's decision was reversed. By participating in this lawsuit, these Legal Services programs appear to have gone far afield of their mission to assist the everyday legal needs of the poor.
See South Carolina v. O’Leary, 64 F.3d 892 (4th Cir. 1995).
Legal Services Group Represents Recent Arrivals Attempting to Qualify For In-State Tuition At UNC-Greensboro
In a bid to increase the financial burden of both North Carolina taxpayers and university students, Central Carolina Legal Services, a unit of Legal Services Corporation of North Carolina, represented two students attending the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in their 1996 lawsuit arguing that the students were entitled to in-state tuition at the University. Both students admitted that they had moved to North Carolina specifically for the purpose of attending UNC-G, and that both had lived elsewhere until their studies began. Both state trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of the University. Although the court considered the case in a serious manner, it is difficult to fathom how litigating the issue of in-state tuition at public universities addresses the legal needs of North Carolina residents living in poverty.
See Norman v. Cameron, 127 N.C. App. 44, 488 S.E. 2d 297 (1997)
Central Carolina Legal Services Sues Local School District to Force
Reversal of Admissions Policy
Attempting to thwart the policy of the Guilford County Board of Education to limit its financial burden of providing tuition-free public education to legal residents of the county, Central Carolina Legal Services brought suit on behalf of two children who were denied tuition-free admission to Guilford County schools because they did not meet the School Board’s residency requirements. The School Board’s residency policy holds that the residency of students under 18 years of age is determined by the residency of their parents, legal guardian or legal custodian. After being denied tuition-free admission by the School Board, two children whose legal guardians resided outside the county filed suit in 1994 with the assistance of Central Carolina Legal Services. Both the trial court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals refused to overturn the School Board's policy. By bringing such a lawsuit, Central Carolina Legal Services is seeking to force local taxpayers into supporting the public education of non-resident children when those children have the option to attend school free-of-charge elsewhere.
See Ballard v. Weast, 121 N.C. App. 391, 465 S.E. 2d 565 (1996).
Pisgah Legal Services Argues That Company Violated ADA By Changing Its Health Insurance Coverage
In a remarkable case, Pisgah Legal Services, a unit of Legal Services Corporation of North Carolina, claimed that Colony Lake Lure Golf Resort violated the Americans With Disabilities Act when the resort switched to a new health benefits program before offering to rehire an employee who had been previously laid off. The employee, Susan Connor, is the mother of a son whose suffers from Treacher-Collins Syndrome, a disabling illness. The resort’s previous health insurance plan covered this form of illness, but the new plan does not. The federal court trying the case ruled in favor of the resort and pointed out that Ms. Connor had not even made sufficient allegations to prove a case of unlawful discrimination because she had not provided any evidence that she was fired due to her son’s disability. Indeed, the court found that all available evidence showed that the resort’s manager did not even know that Ms. Connor had a disabled child until legal proceedings had commenced. By taking on such cases that clearly lack merit and punish private businesses which have to defend the lawsuits, Legal Services programs in North Carolina are diverting taxpayer-provided funds away from the ostensible goal of meeting the everyday legal needs of the poor.
See Conner v. Colony Lake Lure, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15938 (W.D.N.C.
September 4, 1997).