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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT