Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA Kokomo business is suing the federal government for reinstatement into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, claiming it was temporarily disqualified without due process.
Representatives of Fish Chicken & Shrimp Market Inc., also say investigators tried to entrap its non-English-speaking clerks into trading cash for SNAP benefits, according to a complaint filed earlier this week in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
The retailer is asking the court to review the case and set aside a six-month suspension from the program handed down by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service.
SNAP benefits, also known as “food stamps,” are government assistance that helps low-income individuals afford groceries and healthy food.
The agency’s final decision on the suspension was made last month. Federal officials allege that the market violated 278.2 (a) of the SNAP regulations, which prohibit the use of benefits for any non-food purpose.
Federal officials cite an investigation report that states that a market employee allowed SNAP benefits to be used for non-eligible items on at least five separate occasions, according to paperwork sent to the market’s attorney Joseph Baghat, a representative of The Privacy Firm based in Philadelphia.
Documents filed in court do not detail the non-eligible items.
“The investigation report documents by a preponderance of the evidence that the store employee engaged in the misuse of SNAP benefits … warranting a disqualification as a SNAP retail food store for a period of six months,” said David Shively, an administrative review officer for the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Administration, in a final decision dated July 16.
The disqualification will take effect 30 days after the July 16 letter was delivered.
In the lawsuit filed on Aug.10, Baghat alleged that the agency did not provide the plaintiff with due process, which would include confronting and cross-examining witnesses, reviewing unredacted information in the agency’s reports and investigation materials.
The USDA objects to this and other allegations which it summarizes in its July decision, which was attached to the plaintiff’s lawsuit as an exhibit.
“The record does not indicate any departure from established policy or procedures with regard to Appellant’s right to a fair and thorough review,” Shively stated. “Appellant has exercised its opportunity to reply to the charge letter and its administrative review rights and, by doing so, has availed itself of the full complement of the agency’s statutory obligations with regard to due process.”
Baghat also alleges investigators mishandled the investigation. According to the lawsuit, investigators tried to entrap the market’s non-English-speaking clerks into trading cash for SNAP benefits, an offense known as “trafficking.” The clerks refused to do so.
The employees’ conduct, he noted, “weighs heavily in favor of plaintiffs and should be taken into consideration in determining what would be an appropriate sanction.”
The USDA acknowledged the employees’ refusal to engage in trafficking but stated other employees have allowed SNAP benefits to be used for non-eligible items.
Shively stated that “had an effective compliance policy and program been in effect” it was unlikely the other employees would have made their mistake.
“The more likely explanation is that store ownership and/or management failed to properly train and subsequently supervise the employees,” Shively stated.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.