ILNews

COA: Plaintiff class in FSSA suit too broad

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of certification of a proposed class suing the Family and Social Services Administration because plaintiffs believed the modernized public benefits program system has a disparate impact on people with disabilities. Even though the contract with the company providing the system was terminated earlier this month, the parties don't claim this action alters their appeal.

In Sheila Perdue, et al., v. Anne Waltermann Murphy, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al., No. 49A02-0901-CV-8, the appellate court determined the current class was too broad but remanded for the trial court to determine whether a more specific class to sustain the Americans with Disabilities Act action can be defined.

The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration contracted with IBM in March 2007 to provide welfare programs in the state. The process for obtaining food stamps, Medicaid, and other services changed; under the new system, clients weren't assigned individual caseworkers and electronic files were used instead of hard copies. The determination of eligibility under this new system also changed.

Sheila Perdue was enrolled in the food stamp and Medicaid for Disabled programs, but after IBM took over, she was denied food stamps and Medicaid under the new requirements. Perdue and others filed suit against the FSSA and represent three classes and one subclass claiming violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. All were certified except Class B, the one at issue in the instant case; the trial court denied certifying the class, which led to this interlocutory appeal.

The trial court deemed the instant action as a series of individual ADA/RA actions that would require mini-trials and individualized inquires before class membership could be established. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing the recent decision in Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 574 F.3d 169, 200 (3d Cir. 2009), in which the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held the individualized inquiries necessary to determine ADA eligibility rendered class certification improper, even if plaintiffs were only seeking injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The plaintiffs need to be evaluated to see if they were "qualified" as required under the ADA.

Class B names no unifying or limiting conditions suffered or accommodations/modifications sought to allow classwide evaluation of whether they are "qualified" under the ADA such that discrimination against them on the basis of their disabilities is unlawful, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.

"Without such limiting conditions, we conclude, pursuant to Hohider, that the necessary inquiries to establish the alleged discrimination in the instant case are too individualized and divergent to warrant certification," he wrote.

However, it may be possible to define a more limited class of people challenging the FSSA's policy under the ADA that would be appropriate for class certification. A class action can't be maintained without a properly defined class, but a court can redefine the class in order to sustain the lawsuit, wrote Judge Bradford.

The state announced Oct. 15 that it terminated the contract with IBM for the delivery of welfare services because the company didn't make satisfactory progress to improve services to applicants and recipients under a plan to correct deficiencies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT