Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------)C
LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., MICHELE N., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

05 Civ. 6920 (LTS)

- against-
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Administrator/Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------)C

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, for their complaint against defendant

allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Due Process Clause of the United States and New York State Constitutions, and New York State and City civil rights statutes and regulations. 2. The plaintiffs and the class and subclass they seek to represent are poor New Yorkers who are disabled under federal, state and city statutes and regulations, and who have received or will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") involuntarily transferring their public assistance cases to one of three segregated "hub" centers, located great distances from many of their homes. 3. Plaintiffs seek the same choice that is afforded to most non-disabled welfare recipients: the ability to maintain eligibility for public assistance benefits in their local

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 39
welfare centers (known as "Job Centers"), and to avoid being forced to receive these benefits in segregated settings, far from their homes, that almost exclusively serve disabled individuals.
4. Plaintiffs also seek reasonable accommodations that would enable them to receive HRA services in a way that does not discriminate against them because of their disabilities.
JURISDICTION 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.c.A. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). The action arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C.A. § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367 over plaintiffs' claims under the New York State Constitution and state and local laws prohibiting disability discrimination. 7. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b)(I) and (2).
PARTIES 8. Plaintiff LOVELY H. lives in Arveme in the Far Rockaway section of Queens with her elderly, disabled mother. In January, 2005, she received a notice transferring her public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid case from her local welfare center located three blocks from her home in Far Rockaway, Queens to "hub" center 39 in Union Square, Manhattan - ninety minutes away from her home. She suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA. 9. Plaintiff GLORIA Q.lives in the Jackson Heights section of Queens. In January 2005, she received a notice involuntarily transferring her public assistance, Food Stamp
2

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 3 of 39
and Medicaid case from her local welfare center located 15 minutes from her home in Queens to "hub" center 39 in Union Square, Manhattan - over one hour away. Ms. Q. suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA.
10. Plaintiff MICHELE N.lives in Howard Beach, Queens with her sister. In April, 2005, she received a notice transferring her public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid case from her welfare center located in Jamaica, Queens to "hub" center 39 located in Union Square, an hour away from her home. She suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA.
11. Defendant VERNA EGGLESTON is the Commissioner of HRA, the executive agency of the City of New York which has responsibility for the operation and administration of public assistance programs for New York City residents, including: cash assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Commissioner Eggleston is sued in her official capacity.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 12. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. The plaintiff class consists of recipients of public assistance, Food Stamps and/or Medicaid in New York City who have a physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(21) (McKinney 2005), and who have received or will receive a notice from HRA involuntarily transferring their case to one of three "hub centers" in Manhattan, the Bronx, or Brooklyn. This section of the New York State Human Rights Law defines disability as (a) a physical, mental or medical impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic or neurological conditions which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function or is demonstrable by medically accepted
3

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 4 of 39
clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, or (b) a record of such an impairment, or (c) a condition regarded by others as such an impairment. Id.
14. The subclass is comprised of class members, each of whom (a) has a physical and/or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, (b) has a record of such an impairment, or (c) is regarded as having such an impairment.
15. The class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. According to HRA, over 45,000 adults receiving public assistance report that they suffer from an impairment that limits their functioning. Most of these persons have received, or will receive, a notice from HRA involuntarily transferring their case to one of the three "hub centers" in Manhattan, the Bronx, or Brooklyn.
16. The rules, policies, procedures, and methods of administration of the government agencies that administer and supervise public assistance in New York City that form the factual basis for this complaint are common to all members of the class and subclass. The relief sought will apply to all of them.
17. Questions of law common to the members of the class and subclass include whether defendant Eggleston has violated:
a. the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and New York State Constitution by providing plaintiffs with misleading notice regarding the transfer of their cases to hub centers that does not offer them a right to challenge the transfers; and
b. federal, state and city laws prohibiting disability discrimination based on HRA's segregation of plaintiffs, failure to provide them with an option to remain at their local centers, disparate treatment of plaintiffs, failure to provide reasonable modifications, and use of methods of administration that have a disparate impact.
18. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims ofthe entire class and subclass.
4

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 5 of 39
19. The named plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately representing the class and subclass and protecting its interests. Counsel for the plaintiffs, the Legal Aid Society, is a legal services organization with substantial experience in class action litigation on behalf of persons with disabilities and persons eligible for public assistance. Counsel are not aware of any conflicts among members of the proposed plaintiff class and subclass.
20. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class and subclass would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant.
21. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class and subclass would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members which would, as a practical matter, substantially impair the ability of other members to protect their interests.
22. The defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class and subclass, making appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class and subclass as a whole.
FACTS COMMON TO THE CLASS Basic Public Assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid:
The Scope of Subsistence Level Benefits 23. HRA is responsible for administering basic subsistence level benefits for indigent New Yorkers, including cash assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Two types of cash assistance are provided: Family Assistance, which provides cash assistance to indigent families with children under 18 years of age, and Safety Net Assistance, which provides cash assistance to poor persons whose needs are not otherwise met by any other assistance program. Food
5

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 6 of 39
Stamps are designed to enable poor New Yorkers to obtain food to maintain a healthy diet. The Medicaid program enables low-income individuals to access health care and medication.
24. Each ofthese public benefit programs provides subsistence-level benefits to poor New Yorkers based upon their income and need for assistance. The maximum amount of public assistance cash benefits that will be provided to an individual per month is $352.10; a mother with one child will receive a maximum of$501.50. The maximum amount of Food Stamps that will be provided to an individual per month is $149; a mother and child will receive a maximum of $274.
Accessing Benefits: The Local Welfare Center 25. Poor New Yorkers in need of cash assistance, Food Stamps or Medicaid can apply for these benefits at one of29 local welfare offices called "Job Centers" located throughout the five boroughs of New York City and operated by HRA. There are nine centers in Brooklyn, nine centers in Manhattan, six centers in the Bronx, four centers in Queens and one center on Staten Island. There are also several centers that serve special populations such as veterans and refugees. 26. Once a case is opened and an individual is receiving public assistance, Food Stamps and/or Medicaid, a recipient must return to the Job Center during the year to prove that she continues to remain eligible for benefits, a process known as "recertification." Recipients must recertify at the Job Center at least every six months. 27. A recipient must also return to her Job Center to have her case adjusted every time she has a "change in circumstance" such as: when she gets a job; when she loses a job; when she needs to change day care arrangements for her child so she can work or she needs
6

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 7 of 39
to stay at home to care for a child with a serious illness or disability rather than attend a work assignment; when she has a baby; or when a family member moves out of the house.
28. Recipients must also return to their Job Centers to correct any errors in the amount of cash or Food Stamps they receive and to deal with any problems accessing their benefits. Finally, welfare recipients return to their welfare centers to resolve emergencies and to secure benefits to prevent eviction and utility shut-offs.
Assessment of Ability to Participate in Work Activities 29. As a condition of receiving public assistance in New York State, all recipients must be engaged in work activities unless they are exempted from participating in such activities. N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 335-b. 30. Individuals who are ill, incapacitated, or deemed disabled are exempt from work activities. N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 332(1). 31. Individuals who have functional limitations are deemed "work limited" and may be assigned to work activities only if the assignment is consistent with the individual's treatment plan, if a social services official determines that such person is able to perform the work assigned, and such assignment will assist the individual's transition to self-sufficiency. Where no treatment plan exists, the work activities must be consistent with the individual's mental and physical limitations. N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 335-b(5)(e). 32. As part of the application process, and on an ongoing basis thereafter, HRA must determine whether an applicant or recipient is exempt from work activities. 33. All of the individual's limitations must be communicated to the person supervising the work assignment. N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 335-b(5)(f).
7

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 8 of 39
34. HRA is required to inquire at application, recertification, or whenever it has reason to believe that a physical or mental impairment may prevent the individual from fully engaging in these work activities. N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 332-(b)(1).
35. HRA is aware that a significant percentage of public assistance recipients in New York City experience serious health, mental health, or other disability issues that prevent them from fully or partially engaging in traditional employment activities, and that render them either permanently disabled, unable to engage in work activities for a stated period of time, or work limited.
36. According to HRA, in December 2004, over half (55.7%) of public assistance recipients with children were found to be fully or partially unable to participate in work.
HRA's Past Policy: Most Recipients Were Served at Their Local Job Centers No Matter How Disabled
37. Beginning in or prior to 1997, HRA contracted with a private vendor, HS Systems, Inc. ("HS Systems") to assess those individuals it had reason to believe had a physical or mental impairment that may have prevented the individual from fully engaging in work activities.
38. For this purpose, HS Systems evaluated the individuals, and determined their abilities to engage fully in work activities. The contractor determined whether individuals were either fully able to engage in work activities, exempt from work activities, or work limited with stated functional limitations. The categories of limitations reported to HRA by HS Systems included: limitations on travel; limitations on interactions with others; limitations related to bladder and bowel functioning; limitations on breathing and environmental conditions; limitations on learning; and limitations on manual tasks.
8

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 9 of 39
39. Based on these contractor ratings, HRA, in tum, took one of the following actions: exempted those individuals altogether from work activities; provided them with a modified assignment to account for their functional limitations; required them to attend a rehabilitation or "wellness" program run by a contractor to become medically and/or vocationally ready for a job in the future; or determined they had no limitations and assigned them to a work activity without limitation.
40. Until November 2004, nearly all applicants and recipients who were evaluated for work limitations continued to be served at their local Job Center, no matter what the outcome of the assessment of their ability to engage in work activities. Although some worklimited or medically exempt clients' work program requirements were administered by a single, centralized office, nearly all of these clients could continue to go to their local Job Center to attend to their cases, regardless of whether they were found to be completely exempt from work activities, work-limited, or fully able to engage in work activities.
The Consequences of Missing Appointments 41. HRA conditions receipt of public benefits on satisfaction of many requirements, among them on-time attendance at many appointments, including face-to-face recertification, eligibility verification, and Office of Child Support Enforcement appointments. See, e.g., N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 131(5); N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, §§ 351.21 and 369.2(b). In addition, clients must submit documentation of numerous pieces of information and respond to requests for information within strict deadlines (often ten calendar days of the request). See, e.g., N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, §§ 351.1-2; 351. I (b)(iv), 22(b) & (c). 42. In addition, receipt of public assistance and Food Stamp benefits is contingent on satisfaction of public assistance work program requirements, including
9

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 10 of 39
establishing an exemption, see N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 1300.2, or participating in work activities if one is not exempt. See N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 1300.9.
43. Whenever a benefits recipient fails to report on time for a mandatory appointment, HRA initiates an "adverse case action." There are at least two common types of adverse case actions - case closings and sanctions. A case closing means that the public assistance, Food Stamps, and/or Medicaid case is closed for every person in the household. See N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 351.22(b). Under some circumstances, a household member can be penalized by being removed from the household budget or by a 25% reduction in the household grant. See, e.g., N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 352.30(d)(l) & (4); N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 1300.l2(b)(l).
44. A sanction eliminates the recipient's pro rata share of cash and food stamps for a pre-determined amount of time. See, e.g., N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, §§ 352.30(d)(2)-(3) & 1300.12(d). The computer system used by HRA requires worker input to ensure that clients do not receive sanctions or case closings. Unless a worker (l) affirmatively informs the system that the client attended the appointment successfully or (2) cancels or reschedules the appointment, the system generates an adverse case action notice automatically.
45. A recipient who is not exempt from public assistance and Food Stamp work requirements and who fails without good cause to comply with any work requirement is sanctioned. For example, if a client misses a day of a vocational rehabilitation program without documentation of good cause for absence on that particular day, she is sanctioned. HRA initiates the sanction process unless its computer is told not to do so. If there is only one person in the household, the public assistance and Food Stamp cases are closed completely for a fixed period of time. (Under New York State law, work sanctions do not apply to Medicaid. N.Y. Soc. Servo
10

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 11 of 39
Law § 366(1)(a)(I).) For recipients without children, the first sanction lasts for a minimum of90 days; the next is for a minimum of 150 days; after that, all sanctions are for a minimum of 180 days. For recipients with children, the sanction removes the pro rata share ofthe recipient's public assistance and Food Stamp benefits. The first sanction is until compliance, the second for a minimum of three months, and thereafter, for a minimum of six months. N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 342(2).
46. Recipients who are exempt from work rules, including those exempt due to disability, may not be sanctioned for work-rule violations. Nonetheless, they are required to attend a host of mandatory appointments, including appointments for medical evaluations and treatment. If they fail to appear for these mandatory appointments, HRA closes their public assistance and Food Stamp cases. For a recipient who has been exempted from work due to disability, this means that if she misses an appointment to be medically tested or otherwise verify her disability, her case will be closed. Appearance at those appointments is considered a condition of eligibility.
47. The process of "un-doing" a case closing or sanction requires traveling to an in-person appearance at a city or state office to attend what is known as either a "conciliation" appointment or an administrative fair hearing. At this in-person appearance, a client must demonstrate "good cause" to stop the sanction or case closing to get her case reopened and her benefits restored. Often this is not a simple matter. For example, even where a client has a chronic medical condition like asthma, which may cause her to predictably miss some appointments, HRA often expects the client to produce a doctor's note or some evidence beyond her own statements as to why she missed an appointment on that particular day. Whether she has
11

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 12 of 39
such evidence or not, she then must travel to the city or state office to present the reasons "good cause" should be granted.
HRA's New Policy: Disabled Recipients Are Forced Out of Their Local Job Centers to Segregated Centers Located Far from their Homes
48. In order to provide employment-related services to clients with physical and mental impairments, HRA has implemented a new program called the Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment program (the "WeCARE Program"). HRA has contracted with two private vendor organizations, Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc. (known as "FEGS") and Arbor Education & Training, L.L.C. ("Arbor E&T"), to deliver the services under the WeCARE Program. The assessment services provided by the WeCARE vendors have taken the place of the medical evaluation services formerly provided by HS Systems. These vendors are charged with assessing 45,000 HRA clients with mental and physical impairments and providing them with appropriate rehabilitative services or assisting them in getting permanent disability benefits.
49. The WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors will serve clients at various sites in the five boroughs, but not at the Job Centers, including the hub centers.
Segregated Administration of Benefits Cases of Physically and Mentally Impaired Clients
50. The public benefits cases of WeCARE Program clients are still to be administered at Job Centers. However, these centers have been designated "hub" centers or "WeCARE job centers." These centers perform the same operations to administer public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid as other Job Centers throughout the city.
51. There are three such centers: the Union Square Center (39) in Manhattan, the Fulton Center (61) in downtown Brooklyn, and the Concourse Center (45) in the Bronx.
12

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 13 of 39
These hub centers will only serve clients with physical or mental impairments. HRA has been transferring all cases of non-impaired clients out of these centers.
52. Although WeCARE clients are from all five boroughs of New York City, there are no "hub" centers in Staten Island or Queens. Staten Island and Queens clients with physical or mental impairments are to be served at the Union Square Center in Manhattan.
53. WeCARE Program vendor staff are not located at the "hub" centers, nor at any other job centers, despite the fact that one of the contractors, Arbor E&T, stated in its contract submissions registered with the City of New York that it could "co-locate" WeCARE Program staff at Job Centers throughout the City.
54. HRA has issued instructions to its own welfare center workers concerning the WeCARE Program. These instructions, set forth in the "WeCARE Policy Directive," do not direct HRA workers to provide all of the type of accommodations to clients that are required of the WeCARE Program vendors. Thus, from the perspective of disabled clients, the "hub" center is no different from the local Job Center from which their case was transferred. It offers no special services or even the type of simple modification measures required of vendors. See ~~ 81-84, infra (describing reasonable modifications required of vendors). The hub center plays no substantive role in the WeCARE Program. The hub centers amount to mere "shells," centralized repositories for the cases of disabled persons. The only difference is location. The result ofthe transfer to segregated "hub" centers is that most disabled clients will now have to travel farther to attend all of the required appointments at their welfare centers or to seek assistance from those centers.
Transfer of Public Assistance Cases to Segregated WeCARE "Hub Centers"
13

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 14 of 39
55. Starting in November 2004, HRA began transferring the public benefits cases of all 45,000 individuals whom its medical contractor found have physical or mental impairments and resulting functional limitations that affect their ability to work to these same three "hub" center locations in the City.
56. HRA has also been transferring public assistance cases of non-disabled households out of the "hub" centers to other Job Centers in order to make room for disabled transferees.
57. As a result of these transfers, HRA's local welfare centers will have virtually no clients with disabilities, and nearly all clients with disabilities will have their cases assigned to hub centers.
58. HRA is consciously making its hub centers into segregated centers dedicated almost exclusively to persons with disabilities, while preventing these individuals from being served at their local centers.
59. HRA has instructed its workers that when a new applicant has a functional limitation on work activities, the agency must transfer that case to one of its three "hub centers," instead of maintaining the case at the local center where the applicant applied for benefits.
60. Because of this change, tens ofthousands of recipients with work limitations must now travel to their "hub center," for example: in order to recertify eligibility; every time they have a "change in circumstance"; every time it becomes necessary to correct an error in the amount of cash or Food Stamps they receive or to deal with problems accessing their benefits; and when it is necessary to secure emergency benefits such as payments to prevent eviction and utility shut-offs. See ~~ 27-28, supra.
14

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 15 of 39
61. Clients whose cases have been transferred to a hub center, and who have attempted to obtain emergency benefits from their local Job Centers, have been told by local center staff that they must travel to their hub center to obtain these benefits.
WeCARE Program Services Are Not Provided At Hub Centers So Transfer of Cases is Unnecessary
62. It is unnecessary to segregate the provision of services to disabled persons by transferring their cases to a limited number of hub centers.
63. The WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors provide services at various locations throughout the city, not at the hub centers.
64. HRA's own workers staffthe hub centers and they perform essentially the same functions as are performed at all other Job Centers. Those functions include conducting recertifications, adjusting benefits, correcting payment problems, and issuing emergency benefits like rent arrears grants and payments to avoid utility shut-off.
65. Because the actual services provided by WeCARE vendors and subcontractors will not be located at segregated hub centers, and because the work performed by HRA's own workers at hub centers is basically no different from the work performed at local centers, it is entirely unnecessary to transfer the public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid cases of disabled persons to a limited number of segregated hub centers.
HRA Has Sent Transferred Clients Confusing Letters with Misleading Information About the Right to Request Reasonable Modifications 66. Initially, HRA sent notices to about 23,000 recipients of public assistance,
Food Stamps and Medicaid that their cases had been/would be transferred to a new center. HRA transferred these recipients because their records showed they had one or more mental and/or physical impairments. HRA made no exceptions for persons for whom known impairments
15

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 16 of 39
could make it difficult to get to a hub center at a greater distance from their homes. HRA did not notify recipients of any option to continue to receive benefits or services at their local Job Center.
67. The text of the notice sent to recipients whose cases were being transferred stated:
Upon receipt of this notice, your case will be serviced by the new Center whose name and address is listed on the top left comer of this notice. If there is any change in your situation or if you need to call the center, please use the telephone number on this notice. 68. The notice failed to provide any option but to be involuntarily transferred to this segregated "hub center." The notice failed to inform recipients about procedures to follow that would permit them to continue receiving services at their local welfare center. The notice failed to apprise recipients of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The notice failed to specify what constitutes a "change in your situation," making it difficult for recipients to know what is required ofthem with respect to the new center. The notice failed to indicate that recipients may continue to seek emergency benefits from their local Job Center, regardless of whether their case has been transferred to a "hub center." 69. On March 18,2005, HRA sent a subsequent notice to these 23,000 recipients, informing them: Recently, you were notified by mail that your public assistance case was transferred to the:
WeCARE Job Center #_ _ __ [mailing address of center] This center will serve public assistance recipients who are WeCARE Program participants. Your public assistance benefits, services, and recertification will be handled by the Center to which your case was assigned, whose staff will receive special training in
16

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 17 of 39
the services WeCARE offers, and will be better equipped to coordinate your eligibility needs with your WeCARE activities. However, if you have a medical and/or mental health condition that makes it impossible for you to travel to your WeCARE Job Center, or if your inability to travel has caused you to miss an appointment at the WeCARE Job Center, you may telephone the HRA Infoline at (877) 472-8411 to ask for information how to obtain a reasonable accommodation. [sic.] 70. In the March 18, 2005 notice, HRA misled clients by informing them that it must be "impossible for you to travel" to hub centers in order to inquire about obtaining a reasonable accommodation. This language discouraged clients from contacting HRA unless they met this misleading standard. The same misleading information has been incorporated in the transfer letters that have been issued since that time. 71. HRA's March 18, 2005 notice does not explain whether recipients may choose to continue receiving services at their local welfare centers. The notice fails to explain the term "reasonable accommodation." The notice fails to apprise recipients of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The notice fails to indicate whether disabled recipients may continue to seek emergency benefits from their local welfare center, regardless of whether their case has been transferred to a "hub center." 72. Due to a computer error, HRA mistakenly included the wrong names and identifying information on 17,000 of these notices. Thus, on March 22 and 23, 2005, HRA sent a third notice to 17,000 of the 23,000 transferred individuals, instructing them to destroy or return the second notice they had received and reiterating the information from the second March 18, 2005 notice. 73. HRA is currently using another similar form letter to tell clients that their case has been transferred to a hub center.
17

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 18 of 39
74. An analysis by the Word Perfect word processing software feature called Grammatik reveals that the initial transfer notice, the March 18, 2005 notice and the March 2223, 2005 notice sent by HRA to individuals with disabilities who had been transferred to hub centers were drafted at a reading level that requires more than a 15th grade education.
No Meaningful Opportunity to Challenge a Transfer to a Hub Center 75. Disabled clients whose cases are closed because they have difficulty
traveling to a hub center for a mandatory appointment have no opportunity to challenge their assignment to a hub center. Although a client may challenge the case closing or sanction at a conciliation appointment at the Job Center or a State administrative fair hearing, even if she prevails and succeeds in getting her case reopened and her benefits restored, she will be unable to challenge her assignment to a hub center. This relief is not available at a conciliation or fair hearing. Thus, disabled clients face an ongoing threat of having their cases closed numerous times due to travel hardships and other problems attributable to the involuntary transfer to a hub center.
Failure to Provide Reasonable Modifications, Inadequacy of Training and Supervision
76. Reasonable modifications in the defendant's policies, practices, procedures, and methods of administration are necessary to enable plaintiffs to apply for, successfully obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid.
77. Reasonable modifications in the defendant's policies, practices, and procedures are necessary to afford plaintiffs an opportunity to apply for, obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance on terms equal to and as effective as those enjoyed by nondisabled persons.
18

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 19 of 39
78. HRA has failed to adequately train and supervise its staff in local Job Centers regarding the rights of qualified individuals with disabilities, their rights to receive benefits and services pursuant to the ADA, and how to provide reasonable accommodations to such individuals.
79. HRA has failed to adequately train and supervise its staff at hub centers regarding the rights of qualified individuals with disabilities, their rights to receive benefits and services pursuant to the ADA, and how to provide reasonable accommodations to such individuals.
80. Local Job Centers and hub centers both fail to provide reasonable modifications that HRA specifically requires its WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors to provide clients participating in WeCARE Program services.
81. Specifically, the WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors, though not the hub centers or Job Centers, are to provide the following types of reasonable modifications as a form of case management:
(a) "Engagement," which involves ongoing contact with disabled clients initiated by vendor staff, as frequently as is clinically necessary;
(b) "Outreach," which involves the vendor taking progressive escalating steps to engage or re-engage disabled clients. For example, when an individual "fails to report" (FTR) for an appointment or "fails to comply" (FTC) with an activity or appointment, the WeCARE Program vendor is required to contact the individual by telephoning, sending letters, making collateral contacts with family members or others, and making home visits. An adverse action, such as a sanction or case closing, cannot be taken until escalating outreach has failed.
(c) "Facilitation" requires the WeCARE Program vendor to work with a disabled client to promote attendance at scheduled WeCARE Program appointments, providing necessary reasonable accommodations, including escorts where appropriate.
(d) "Monitoring of Compliance," which involves various steps by which WeCARE Program vendor staff monitor and evaluate a client's progress in the program.
19

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 20 of 39
(e) "Crisis intervention," which is provided by the WeCARE Program vendor as appropriate to identify early warning signs of crisis and/or relapse and to intervene timely and assist the client in obtaining emergency services.
82. The WeCARE Program vendor is also to take steps to ensure that needed accommodations are identified, recorded, and provided by the vendor or its sub-contractors. At the initial WeCARE Program Assessment Appointment, the vendor is supposed to determine the accommodations needed by each client to participate successfully in the WeCARE Program assessment process. The vendor is also supposed to inform the client about the right to accommodations in all WeCARE Program services.
83. In its report on the assessment, the WeCARE Program vendor is to identify, among other things, any accommodations the client requires to fulfill work requirements.
84. The WeCARE Program vendor is also required to accommodate clients' needs in rescheduling appointments.
85. The practices required of WeCARE Program vendors are not offered by HRA staff at the agency's own welfare centers, including hub centers.
86. These accommodations can be provided at hub centers and local Job Centers.
87. There is a generic ADA policy directive that applies to all Job Centers but it does not address many of the needs, or include references to many of the reasonable accommodations that are described in HRA's guidelines applicable to WeCARE Program vendors.
88. HRA knows or has reason to know that plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class, all of whom have disabilities within the meaning of the ADA and/or state law
20

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 21 of 39
often require reasonable accommodations like telephoning, sending letters, making horne visits, and/or providing case management services in order meaningfully to access their benefits.
89. The WeCARE Program vendor also provides reasonable modification to prepare clients with mental and physical impairments for work. For example, WeCARE Program vendors' job preparation and job search services are to include specialized activities for people with disabilities, such as "job coaching" and "job shadowing," as well as a specific orientation on the legal rights of people with disabilities.
Disabled Individuals are Burdened and Harmed by the HRA's New Segregated System 90. HRA's new "hub" centers create substantial additional burdens for
individuals with physical and mental impairments who have been assigned there, without any corresponding justification or benefit.
91. First, they are at greater risk of having their cases closed due to missing a required appointment, such as an eligibility recertification, because of a travel hardship. A recipient who fails to report to a mandatory appointment has her public assistance and Food Stamps cases closed. Thus, disabled individuals who have difficulty attending appointments at hub centers are at risk of having their cases closed. As of March 22,2005, 791 individuals whose cases had been transferred to hub centers had their cases closed for failing to report to appointments even before the WeCARE Program was fully operational.
92. Second, disabled individuals who have travel limitations experience greater pain and discomfort traveling to a distant hub center than to their local Job Center.
93. Third, regardless of travel hardship, many disabled individuals will incur much greater time and inconvenience traveling to remote hub centers. Some will also incur additional travel costs that they cannot afford.
21

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 22 of 39
94. Fourth, regardless of travel hardship, disabled individuals who require emergency benefits, such as an emergency rent arrears grant to prevent eviction or a utility arrears grant to prevent a utility shut-off, will have greater difficulty obtaining those emergency benefits, and therefore are at greater risk of eviction and/or utility shut-off. This risk is particularly acute for class members who experience travel hardships because oftheir disabilities.
95. Fifth, regardless oftravel hardship, HRA's segregated hub system harms disabled individuals as a class by stigmatizing them and relegating them to second-class status.
FACTS CONCERNING THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS Lovely H.
96. Lovely H. is 45 years old and lives in Arveme in the Far Rockaway area of Queens, with her mother.
97. Lovely H. suffers from anxiety, with a specific phobia that makes it very difficult for her to talk and interact with other people. Her condition also leads her to be extremely worried about her own safety and that of her mother when she is away from home. She tries to avoid interacting with others as much as possible because it causes her so much anxiety.
98. She also has Major Depressive Disorder. Her symptoms include: depressed mood, loss of interest, difficulty concentrating, loss of confidence, and lack of energy. At least twice a week, she experiences severely debilitating symptoms that make it extremely difficult for her to get out of bed. Ms. H. also suffers from sleep apnea. During periods of depression, her sleep apnea is uncontrolled, and she is only able to sleep three or four hours per night.
22

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 23 of 39
99. In addition to these problems, Lovely H. also suffers from arthritis, back pain, and obesity, which make it difficult and painful for her to walk and to climb stairs.
100. These conditions substantially limit Lovely H.'s ability to walk, climb stairs, sleep, interact with other people, maintain a regular schedule, and work. As a result of Lovely H.'s severe anxiety, she becomes extremely anxious when she leaves her home. Her problems climbing up and down stairs make it particularly difficult to use the subway system.
101. Lovely H. receives individual and group therapy once a week at a local mental health clinic, and sees a psychiatrist at the clinic monthly. She is also treated with medication and an oxygen CPAP machine for her apnea, and uses a cane to assist her when she walks.
102. HRA has evaluated Lovely H.'s functional impairments on several occasions and has concluded that she likely meets the Federal Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits criteria to be considered disabled due to her psychiatric condition, and should be exempt from work requirements as a result of her disability.
103. Lovely H.'s only source of support is public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Prior to January 2005, she received her benefits through her local center in Rockaway, Job Center 79, located just three blocks from her home.
104. Sometime in early January 2005, she received a notice transferring her to the segregated hub center in Manhattan - ninety minutes away from her home. The notice did not inform her that she had any choice in the matter or that she could request a State administrative fair hearing if she did not think she should be transferred.
105. In April, Lovely H. needed help from her new hub center. She rents a room from her mother, but her rent checks were being sent by HRA to a Wyoming address with
23

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 24 of 39
a Puerto Rico zip code. She needed this problem fixed and also needed a copy of her public assistance budget to give to the landlord. She called her worker at the hub center and asked ifhe could correct her landlord's address and mail her the budget printout because it was so difficult for her to travel. The worker denied her request for a reasonable modification. He refused to mail her the printout and told her that if she wanted it, she would have to travel in person to the center. He also told her that she needed to bring in proof of her address to correct her shelter payments.
106. Lovely H. traveled to the segregated center in Manhattan on April 4, 2005. Because she was too afraid to travel alone, her seventy-year old mother, who also uses a cane and has trouble walking, traveled with her. To get to hub center 39 at Union Square, Lovely H. and her mother had to navigate two different subway lines and climb several stairways at each station.
107. By the time Lovely H. arrived at hub center 39 ninety minutes later, she was in pain and was experiencing a great deal of anxiety due to the crowds she faced on public transportation during her journey.
108. Lovely H. received no special accommodations at the segregated hub center in Manhattan. She was forced to wait for over one hour in a crowded waiting room without being helped. She told the worker at the desk that she could not be around crowds due to her medical condition, and asked if she could leave the papers she needed to give her worker, but she was told that she could not. She finally left before being seen because she was so uncomfortable in the waiting room. Lovely H.'s attorney intervened with hub center 39 and helped her correct the address for her rent checks.
24

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 25 of 39

109. Lovely H. would like to continue to receive her benefits from her local

welfare center and is afraid that she will not be able to handle the stress or pain caused by ninety

minute trips on public transportation to the hub center in Manhattan.

110. Due to Lovely H.'s medical conditions, she also requires appropriate

reasonable modifications so that she may have equal access to benefits and services. Lovely H.

would like to communicate with her center by mail, fax, or telephone to provide information and

documentation whenever possible, as it is very difficult for her to leave her home. At times

when it is necessary for her to appear at a Job Center in person, she requires flexibility in her

appointments to make it easier for her to comply, and she requires limited wait times because she

experiences anxiety waiting at the center.

Gloria Q.

111. Gloria Q. is a 50 year old disabled recipient of cash assistance, Food

Stamps and Medicaid who suffers from major depressive disorder and back pain due to

degenerative joint disease.

112. She lives alone in Queens and is substantially limited in her ability to

walk, interact with others, travel by public transportation, sleep, eat and work.

113. The symptoms of her depression include lack of energy, depressed mood,

lack of interest, anxiety, lack of concentration, and decreased appetite. Due to her degenerative

joint disease, she suffers pain from extended periods of sitting, standing or walking.

114. Gloria Q. attends weekly psychotherapy sessions and monthly

appointments with a psychiatrist located close to her home as part of her treatment plan. She has

also been prescribed medication for her physical and psychiatric condition. HRA has evaluated

Gloria Q.'s limitations and concluded that she has difficulty standing and walking for long

periods of time and could only manage "limited travel" and not during rush hour. HRA also 25

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 26 of 39
concluded that she would need guidance and understanding in responding to co-workers and supervisors if she were assigned to an employment activity.
115. Until January 2005, Gloria Q. received her public benefits through her local Job Center in Queens - 15 minutes away from her home. In January 2005, Gloria Q. received a form notice transferring her case away from her local center to a hub center in Manhattan - a distance that would take her at least one hour to travel. The notice did not offer her any alternatives or help if she had difficulty getting to the new center.
116. Gloria Q. was fearful that ifher case were transferred to Manhattan she would have greater difficulty attending appointments and that her case would be closed if she missed an appointment. She wanted to continue to receive her benefits through her local center rather than traveling an hour into Manhattan, so her attorney requested that she be allowed to remain there. HRA did not respond to this request.
117. HRA has attempted to close Gloria Q.'s public assistance case twice this year for failure to attend various mandatory public assistance appointments in Manhattan. On one occasion, she arrived late to an appointment at HS Systems. On another occasion, she was unable to attend an appointment at the hub center 39 in Manhattan. In both instances, HRA refused to reschedule these appointments as a reasonable accommodation to her disability. Gloria Q. was forced to retain an attorney and request a fair hearing to avoid loss of her public assistance benefits.
118. In April, Gloria Q. tried to apply for an emergency rent arrears grant at her local welfare center to prevent her eviction. Instead of helping her with the emergency, the local center told her that she had to apply at hub center 39 in Manhattan for help because her case had
26

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 27 of 39
been transferred. Gloria Q. was forced to travel to Manhattan to apply for the emergency grant, even though her local center was authorized to accept the emergency grant application.
119. Due to Gloria Q.'s medical condition, she requires reasonable modifications so that she may have equal access to benefits and services. Gloria Q. would like to communicate with her welfare center by mail, fax, or telephone to provide information and documentation whenever possible, as it is very difficult for her to leave her home. At times when it is necessary for her to appear in person, she requires flexibility in her appointments to make it easier for her to comply, and case management services to assist her with tasks such as explaining notices, rescheduling appointments as necessary, and helping with emergency issues such as a utility shut-off notice. Michele N.
120. Michele N. is 44 years old and lives in Howard Beach with her sister. For the past five years she has been suffering from major depressive disorder and anxiety. Until 2000, Michele N. worked for about twenty years as a shipping clerk, at times working two jobs, sometimes seven days per week.
121. In September, 2000, Michele N. began suffering from severe depression and anxiety, in part because her mother was very ill. She was frequently so upset at work that she experienced crying spells on the job. Unable to continue working, she began receiving disability benefits from her employer due to her health problems. Michele N. attempted to work several times over the next few years but was unable to hold a job for long.
122. Michele N. has difficulty sleeping at night, and often cannot fall asleep until four or five o'clock in the morning. She also has frequent, severe headaches.
123. Michele N. is treated at a local mental health clinic where she has weekly sessions with a therapist. She sees a psychiatrist once a month for psychotherapy and
27

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 28 of 39
medication. She is substantially limited in her ability to work and to interact with others, concentrate, take care of her personal hygiene, sleep, and travel on public transportation.
124. By 2004 Michele N.'s depression and anxiety had worsened so that she would hardly ever leave the house alone, and she had to apply for public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. HRA has evaluated Michele N.'s functional impairments and has concluded that she is impaired in her ability to work. She is awaiting a determination on her application for SSI benefits.
125. Up until April 2005, Michele N.'s welfare center was in Jamaica, Queens, but later that month she received a notice stating that she was transferred to hub center 39, the hub center in Union Square, Manhattan.
126. Michele N. is very concerned about having her public assistance, Food Stamp, and Medicaid case handled in Manhattan. It would be difficult for her to travel alone on public transportation, because she often experiences the symptoms of panic attacks - rapid heart beat and shortness of breath - when she feels she is not in control of her environment, especially in close places with strangers, like subway cars.
127. Also, because of her problems sleeping, it is extremely difficult for her to make early morning appointments. Once, when she was assigned an early appointment for HS Systems she asked if they could please make it later in the day but was told that was not possible.
128. Michele N. is upset about having to travel to Manhattan because ofthe subway and of rush-hour travel. Her sister is recovering from surgery and will be unable to travel with her to her welfare center. It will be difficult enough for Michele N. to travel to her old center in Queens. She is very concerned that she will not be able to manage to travel to hub center 39 in Manhattan, and that she may lose her benefits if she misses an appointment.
28

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 29 of 39
Michele N. requires help accessing her benefits - in particular, help making appointments at convenient times and places or the ability to do things by phone or fax. HRA has denied her attorney's request that her case be transferred back to the Queens welfare center.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(On Behalf of Subclass) VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT A. Discrimination Claims
129. HRA is a "public entity" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 V.S.C.A. §2131(1), and U.S. Department of Justice implementing regulations, at 28 C.F.R. § 35.1 04.
130. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass have at least one "disability," as that term is used in the ADA. The ADA defines "disability" as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; having a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such impairment, as defined under the ADA at 42 U.S.C.A. § 12102(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
131. Each plaintiff and member of the plaintiff subclass is a "qualified individual with a disability" as defined under the ADA, 42 U.S.c.A. § 12131 (2) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, because each person is an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by HRA.
29

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 30 of 39
132. Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff
subclass in violation of 42 V.S.C.A. § 12132 and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §
35.130, in the following ways:
(A) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to administer services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35 .130(d) by forcing plaintiffs to access their benefits and services related to public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid in separate "hub centers," which are segregated settings that almost exclusively serve persons with disabilities.
(B) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members ofthe plaintiff subclass by denying plaintiffs the option to participate in services, programs and activities that are not separate or different in violation of28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(2) by forcing plaintiffs to receive services through the "hub" centers.
(C) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members ofthe plaintiff subclass by failing to provide reasonable modifications necessary for subclass members to apply for, successfully obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, in violation of 42 V.S.C.A. § 12112(b)(5)(A) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
(D) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to (i) afford subclass members such benefits in a manner that is equal to others; and (ii) provide subclass members with benefits in a manner that is as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, gain the same benefit and reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others, in violation of 35.130(b)(1 )(ii) & (iii).
(E) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by intentionally treating subclass members differently from non-disabled public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid recipients in violation of28 C.F.R. §§ 35.l30(a) & 35. 130(b)(1 )(I)-(ii) & (vii).
(F) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by using methods of administration that subject subclass members to discrimination in violation of28 C.F.R. §§ 35.l30(b)(3)(I)-(ii) & 35. 130(b)(8).
133. With respect to each kind of discrimination, paragraphs (A)-(F), defendant
discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass because of their disabilities.
B. Notice Claim
134. Notices sent to plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass indicating
that their cases have been transferred to one of three "hub centers" violate the ADA by failing to
30

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 31 of 39
inform them adequately that they may be protected from such an action by the ADA and of the manner in which they may seek an exemption under the ADA, and by providing misleading information on the right to request reasonable modifications, in violation of28 C.F.R. § 35.106.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (On Behalf of Subclass)
VIOLATIONS OF THE REHABILITATION ACT A. Discrimination Claims
135. HRA is a "recipient" of "federal financial assistance," as defined by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and by implementing regulations promulgated by the u.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, thereby rendering HRA subject to Section 504. 29 U.S.C.A. § 794(b)(l); 28 C.F.R. § 41.3(d)-(e); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(f)-(h); 7 C.F.R. § l5b.3(f)-(g).
136. The administration by HRA of the public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid programs, which are funded in part with federal financial assistance, constitute "programs or activities" subject to Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C.A. § 794(b)(l).
137. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass has at least one "disability," as that term is used in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Like the ADA, Section 504 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities. 29 U.S.C.A. § 705(9)(B) & (20)(B).
138. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass is a "handicapped person," as that term is defined in regulations implementing Section 504. Section 504 regulations define a handicap as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
31

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 32 of 39
more of the major life activities of such individual. 28 C.F.R. § 41.31(a); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j), (1);
7 C.F. R. § 15b.3(i).
139. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass meets the
essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services and is therefore a "qualified
handicapped person," as that term is defined in regulations implementing Section 504. 28 C.F.R.
§ 41.32; 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(1); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.3(n)(4).
140. Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members ofthe plaintiff
subclass in violation of29 V.S.C.A. § 794(a) and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §
41.51; 45 C.F.R. § 8404; 7 C.F.R. § 15bA, in the following ways:
(A) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to administer services, programs and activities in the in the most integrated setting, in violation of28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d); 45 C.F.R. § 84A(b)(3); 7 C.F.R. § 15bA(b)(1)(iii), by forcing plaintiffs to access their benefits and services related to public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid in separate "hub centers," which are segregated settings that almost exclusively serve persons with disabilities.
(B) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by denying subclass members the option to participate in services, programs and activities that are not separate or different, in violation of28 C.F.R. § 41.5 I (b)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 84A(b)(3); 7 C.F.R. § 15bA(b)(3), by forcing subclass members to receive services through the "hub centers."
(C) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to provide reasonable modifications necessary for subclass members to apply for, successfully obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, in violation of29 V.S.C.A. § 794(a).
(D) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members ofthe plaintiff subclass by failing to (i) afford subclass members such benefits in a manner that is equal to others; and (ii) provide subclass members with benefits in a manner that is as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, gain the same benefit and reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others, in violation of28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(l)(ii)-(iii); 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.4(b)(2) & 84.4(b)(1)(ii)-(iii); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.4(b)(1)(ii)-(iii).
(E) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by intentionally treating subclass members differently from non-disabled public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid recipients, in violation of28 C.F.R. §§ 41.51(a) &
32

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 33 of 39
41.51(b)(1)(i)-(ii), (vii); 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.4(a) & 84.4(b)(I)(i)-(ii), (vii); 7 C.F.R. §§ 15b.4(a) & 15b.4(b)(1 )(i)-(ii), (vii).
(F) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and plaintiff members of the subclass by using methods of administration that subject subclass members to discrimination, in violation of28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(3)(i)-(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(4)(i)-(ii); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.4(b)(4)(i)-(ii).
141. With respect to each kind of discrimination, paragraphs (A)-(F), defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass because of their disabilities.
B. Notice Claim 142. Notices sent to plaintiffs and plaintiff members of the subclass indicating
that their cases have been transferred to one of three "hub centers" violate the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to inform them adequately that they may be protected from such an action by the Rehabilitation Act and the manner in which they might seek an exemption under the Rehabilitation Act, and by providing misleading information on the right to request reasonable modifications, in violation of28 C.F.R. § 39.111; 45 C.F.R. § 84.8(a); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.7(a).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION -DUE PROCESS
143. At all times relevant herein, defendant was acting under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, custom, or usage ofthe State of New York.
144. Defendant violates the rights of all class members guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.c.A. § 1983, in at least two ways:
(A) by misleading class members as to their rights to seek a reasonable modification in response to the agency's decision to transfer them to the "hub" centers by advising plaintiffs that they could only seek information about such reasonable modifications should traveling to the "hub" center be "impossible" for them; and
33

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 34 of 39
(B) by failing or refusing to ensure that HRA staff provide class members of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the decision to transfer them to "hub" centers.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION - DUE PROCESS
145. Defendant violates the rights of all class members guaranteed by Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution, in at least two ways:
(A) by misleading class members as to their rights to seek a reasonable modification in response to the agency's decision to transfer them to the "hub" centers by advising plaintiffs that they could only seek information about such reasonable modifications should traveling to the "hub" center be "impossible" for them; and
(B) by failing or refusing to ensure that HRA staff provide class members with adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the decision to transfer them to "hub" centers.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF § 296(2)(a) OF THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 146. HRA "hub" centers are places of public accommodation. N.Y. Exec. Law § 292 (9). 147. Plaintiffs and all class members are persons with a disability within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292 (21). 148. Defendant subjects plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members to discrimination in their civil rights on the basis of their disability by segregating them in "hub" centers, prohibiting their continued access to local centers; adopting policies, procedures and methods of administration that have a disparate impact on disabled persons and treating them differently than non-disabled persons, in violation of the State Human Rights Law. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296-2 (a).
34

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 35 of 39
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW § 40-c 149. At or before the commencement ofthis action, notice thereof has been served upon the attorney general of the State of New York. 150. Plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members are persons with a disability within the meaning ofN.Y. Exec. Law § 292(21). 151. Defendant subjects plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members to discrimination in their civil rights on the basis of their disability by segregating them in "hub" centers, prohibiting their continued access to local centers, adopting policies, procedures and methods of administration that have a disparate impact on disabled persons, and treating them differently than non-disabled persons, in violation of New York State Civil Rights Law. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW
152. Plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members are disabled within the meaning of N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 331(3).
153. The defendant is discriminating against plaintiffs on the basis of handicap in violation ofN.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 331(3) by assigning them to separate facilities for programs offered by the New York City social services district under Title 9B of the Social Services Law.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
35

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 36 of 39
154. Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members
by forcing class members to access their benefits and services related to public assistance, Food
Stamps and Medicaid in separate "hub" centers, which are segregated settings that almost
exclusively serve persons with a substantial handicap to employment, in violation of N.Y. Compo
Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 303.1, including but not limited to the following:
(A) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by denying plaintiffs an aid, care, service or other benefit and privilege on the basis of handicap in violation of N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 303.1(b)(1).
(B) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by providing an aid, care, service or other benefit and privilege to plaintiffs on the basis of their handicaps that are different and provided in a different manner from that provided to others who are not handicapped. N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 303.1(b)(2).
(C) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by subjecting plaintiffs to segregation and separate treatment in matters related to their receipt of aid, care, services, other benefits or privileges on the basis of their handicaps. N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 303.1 (b)(3).
(D) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by restricting them in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any aid, care, services, other benefits or privileges on the basis of their handicaps. N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 303.1(b)(4).
(E) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by denying them the opportunity to participate in a program through the provision of services or otherwise or affording them an opportunity to do so which is different from that afforded others under the program. N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 303.1(b)(6).
(F) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by making a distinction on the basis of handicap in relation to use of physical facilities and intake and application procedures. N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 303.1(b)(7).
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
155. Defendant is a "person" subject to N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(4)(a).
156. Plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members have a disability within the
meaning ofN.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(16).
36

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 37 of 39
157. Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs in violation ofN.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-l07(4)(a) by refusing, withholding from or denying plaintiffs accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges because of their disabilities.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court grant them the following relief: Certify a plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(2).
158. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, omissions and conditions described above are in violation of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class and subclass they seek to represent under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Due Process Clause ofthe United States and New York State Constitutions, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York State Social Services Law and its implementing regulations and the New York City Civil Rights Law.
159. Permanently enjoin defendant, her agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them:
(a) from operating "hub" centers in a manner that serves class members in a segregated setting; and
(b) to offer class members the option to remain at their local job center, or to transfer back to their local job center if their case has already been transferred to a "hub" center.
160. Order defendant to refrain from employing methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating against class members based on their disabilities.
161. Order defendant to reopen all the public assistance, Food Stamp, and/or Medicaid cases of all transferred class members that were closed following the transfer, reverse all other adverse actions taken against transferred class members following the transfer, and restore all lost benefits.
37

I

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 38 of 39

162. Order defendant, her agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them to make reasonable accommodations available to class members in a manner that allows them to comply with the conditions of eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid at their local welfare centers.
163. Award plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.c.A. § 794(b), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988, and 42 U.S.c.A. § 12205, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
164. Retain jurisdiction of this case until the defendant has fully complied with the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that the defendant will continue to comply in the future; and
165. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York
August 3, 2005

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Steve Banks Attorney-in-Charge Adriene Holder, Esq. Attorney-in-Charge, Civil Practice Area Scott Rosenberg, Director of Litigation Richard Blum, of counsel Kathleen Kelleher, of counsel Kenneth R. Stephens, of counsel Susan E. Welber, of counsel Kyla Ratliff, of counsel 199 Water Street, 3d Floor New York, New York 10038 Telephone (212) 577-3300 Facsimile (212) 509-8753
By: ~ ~ ]3}:j,.. Kenneth R. Stephens (KS 7914)
38

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 1 Filed 08/03/05 Page 39 of 39 -and-
A. el n (SE 5 47) " evin M. Ashby (KA 8905) Carolyn Walker-Diallo (CW 9022) One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
39

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 17 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------)l LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., AND MICHELE N. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
- against-
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------)l

05 CV 6920 (LTS)
Stipulation USDCSDNY DOCUMENT
I w't/o?;Il ELECTRONICALLY FILED I
!DDAOTCE#F:ILED:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among the undersigned counsel for the respective parties that Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is resolved as follows:
1. After the commencement of this action, the City defendant transferred the public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid cases of the named plaintiffs, Lovely H. and Gloria Q., back to the centers at which they were served before the transfers to WeCARE job centers; City defendant further agreed that the public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid case of plaintiff Michele N. would not be transferred to a WeCARE Job Center. The parties agree that the named plaintiffs' public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid cases'shall remain at these centers with appropriate reasonable modifications pending the hearing and determination of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; and 2. In order to permit the issues in this case to be heard after a factual record is developed in discovery and the legal issues are fully briefed, Defendant will refrain from performing any new involuntary transfers of the public assistance, Food Stamps, and/or Medicaid cases of recipients of public benefits from Job

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 17 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2

Centers to WeCAREjob centers through November 14, 200S unless there is a decision on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction before that date. Five business days before release or mailing, defendant will provide copies to counsel for plaintiffs of notices regarding any voluntary transfers of the public assistance, Food Stamps, and/or Medicaid cases of recipients of public benefits; and 3. The parties agree that all other aspects of plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order shall be consolidated with and heard at the same time as plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; and 4. By September 23,2005, plaintiffs will serve interrogatories on Defendant regarding data concerning the transfer of cases to and from hub centers and any adverse actions that may have been taken on putative class members' cases. Defendants will respond to these interrogatories on or before October 7, 2005, subject to defendants' right to object to such interrogatories on any grounds other than Local Civil Rule 33.3 or the date on which answers must be served.

The Legal Aid Society Civil Appeals & Law Reform Unit 199 Water Street, 3" Floor New York, New York 10038
Kathleen M. Kelleher (KK 0598) Phone: (212) 577-3307 For Plaintiffs Lovely H, Gloria Q and Michele N

Corporation Counsel of the City Of New York 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007
l~o~~ Phone: (212) 788-0923
For Defendant
SO ORDERED.
~ I~ ~1xr'1.(!)r
LA*<>RSWAlN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 NYC LAW DEPARTMENT Fax:212-788-8877

I
t-DV-l0-20C0aSse112:=0058-cv-0692L0E-GK1=BLFArDDoSOcCurmETeYnt 24

Filed 1N1ov/1150/0250025P1a2g1~ e7:1519o?fS23

P.04
P .l32..1!a4

UNITED STA1!S D$RICf COURT SOU1HER.N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
L--O-.V-E-~L-Y--a~-,--G--L-O--R~I-A--Q--.-• -A-N--D--M---IC--H--E-L..B.--N--.--lt
individunJly and on behalf of all others siJnila.rly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
I
- 38ainst -
VERNA EGGLESTON. as CoIrUDissioncr
of the New York City,Humtn Resources Admini$tration,
: Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - -..- - - - - - x

USDCSDNY

I

DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED !

uf!:!!j;?: J DOC #:

!

DATE FILED:

05 Civ. 6920

IT IS HEREBY stIPuLATED by and among the undersigned counsel for the ~tive parties
that:
1. In order to pennit the 1SS~ in this case to be heard after a factual record i$ developed in discovery and the legal issues are fully briefed. Defendant will refrain from
I
performing auy new involumary transfers of the public assistance, Food Stamps. and/or Mtdica.i<1
cases of recipient~ of public benefits from JDb Centers to WeCARB job c:ertt.ers through the date of the hearing on plBintiffs' motion for 9 pnliminary injunction. Decem~ 13. 2005. Five
I
buainess days before release or mailing. defendant will provide copies to counsel for t)laintiffs of

Page 1 or 2

NYC LAuJ DEPARTMENT

Fax:212-788-8877

140..1-19-2C00a5se112::059-cv-0692L0E-GKI=BIL FAIDDSoOcCuImETeYnt 24 Filed N1o1v/1150/025005Pag17e:521of 2 P.05

212 5e9 87SJ P. a3/04

notices regarding all)' vpJunlalY tran&fers of the public assistance, Food Stamps, andloc Medic8id casal of recipients of ~bJic benefits.
2. A facsimile copy of this stipulation shall be deeme4 an original for til !,urposes..

The legal Aid Society, Civil Appeals & Law~onn Unit 199Wat?! Street, 3nS F.loor
~ ~~lOO3i
Kathleen M. Kelleher! (I{K 0598)
i
Phone: (212) 577-3307
For Plaintiffs Lovely H, Gloria Q and Michele N '

CQI})QI'ation. Counsel of rhe City
Of New York
100 Church Street New Ywk, New York 10007
Pbone: (212) 788·0923 For Defendant

Dated: November 10. 2005 New York, New York

So ORDERED.
,
~ L . A~WATNn/Illas-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT runGE

Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 29
ORIGINAL

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., and MICHELE N., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against-
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Administrator/Comm. New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant.

No. 05 Civ. 6920 (LTS)(AJP)
I USDCSDNY
11~~~:iCAEY FILED
'i DOC#:
DATE FIL-E-D-:--:Lj:-:"/-'"l~j-:-,00:-&-

OPINION AND ORDER

APPEARANCES:

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY By: Kathleen Mary Kelleher Kenneth Richard Stephens Richard Eliot Blum
199 Water st. 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10005
-and-

THE NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
By: Martha Anne Calhoun Emily Sweet Janice Casey Silverberg
100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP
By: Carolyn Walker-Diallo 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005

Attorneysfor Plaintiffs

Attorneys for Defendant

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge
LOVEl.Y H VE"SION 4/1 6/06

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 29

In this action Plaintiffs, who assert that they are welfare recipients with disabilities who reside in New York City, seek declaratory and injunctive relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 ("the Rehabilitation Act"), the Due Process Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, and various New York State and City civil rights and social services statutes and regulations, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of New York City welfare recipients with disabilities. Plaintiffs' claims focus on recent changes in the administration of public assistance, food stamps and Medicaid benefits for such persons. They seek an injunction prohibiting further implementation of a New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") program under which welfare-related services for recipients who suffer from certain mental or medical conditions (and for other recipients involved in those persons' cases) are to be provided only through three "hub" centers in New York City, rather than through the 29 New York City neighborhood offices that generally administer such services. Plaintiffs argue that this centralization aspect of the program and its involuntary nature violate federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and also violate Plaintiffs' due process rights under the Constitution of the United States. Full implementation of the program has been postponed, on consent, pending the briefing and adjudication of Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction application. Plaintiffs have also moved for class certification.
The Court has jurisdiction of the federal constitutional and statutory claims raised in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1343 and, as explained in section II below, also has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state and local law claims. The Court has considered thoroughly the parties' voluminous written evidentiary and argumentative submissions, as well as the

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

2

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 29

oral arguments of counseL This opinion, which addresses the pending motions for class certification and for a preliminary injunction, constitutes the Courfs findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 65. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted to the extent it seeks to require Defendant to offer class members an opportunity to opt out of certain aspects of the contested program.

BACKGROUND The general background of this matter, and the Court's findings as to the factual issues material to its determination of the pending motions, are as follows. Defendant Vema Eggleston is sued in her official capacity as the Commissioner of HRA, which is the executive agency responsible for the operation and administration of public assistance programs for residents of New York City. Named Plaintiff Lovely H. is a woman living in Queens who suffers from anxiety and Major Depressive Disorder, and whose only sources of support are public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Named Plaintiff Gloria Q. is a woman living in Queens who suffers from Major Depressive Disorder and back pain due to degenerative joint disease and who is the recipient of cash assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Named Plaintiff Michele N. is a woman 1iving in Howard Beach (a section of Queens) who suffers from Major Depressive Disorder and anxiety and who receives public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. In early 2005, HRA began to implement a new program, called the Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment ("WeCARE") program, which is "designed to offer comprehensive and integrated services to public assistance clients who have medical or mental health conditions that may affect their ability to work." Defendant's Memorandum

LOVELY H VERSION 4/1 6/06

3

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 29
of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification C'Def. Mem.") at 4. WeCARE services are intended to provide specialized, sensitive support and extra resources (including "assistance with job searches, job development skills training, workshops, computer and literacy assistance, simulated work activities, on the job training, internships, post employment support and job retention supports," (id. at 6)) to clients whose employment capabilities are impaired by medical and/or mental health conditions. Clients who either selfidentify, or who are identified by HRA, as having mental and/or medical health conditions "that prevent them from participating in traditional work activities are referred by HRA to WeCARE for a complete bio-psychosocial [("BPS")] assessment." Id. at 4-5.
The BPS assessment is conducted by a contract vendor and "results in a functional capacity outcome and the development of a comprehensive service plan ... for each client." Id. at 5. Each client who is classified as "temporarily unemployable secondary to unstable medical and/or mental health conditions," "employable with varying degrees oflimitations," or "unemployable for 12 months or more," anyone not classified as "fully employable"), and any other persons receiving benefits in conjunction with that client's case (whether or not those additional persons have medical or mental impairments), is eligible to receive his or her public assistance and related services through the WeCARE program. l Id. Those determined to be eligible for WeCARE are not given the option of declining the transfer of their cases to the program (although, as discussed below, HRA has offered a telephonic information line through which people may request

As of October 2005, 12.7% of the clients who had been assessed were found to be fully employable; 42.7 % were found to be temporarily unemployable secondary to unstable medical andlor mental health conditions; 38.3% were found to be employable with varying degrees of limitations; and 6.2% were determined to be unemployable for 12 or more months. Declaration of Frank Lipton, M.D. ("Lipton Decl.") at ~ 5.

LOVELY H VERSION 4/1 8/06

4

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 5 of 29

accommodations, such as retention oftheir cases at the neighborhood centers). WeCARE program enrollees are required to use one of three dedicated WeCARE "hub" facilities, rather than one of the 29 neighborhood offices that are generally available to other HRA clients, for their in-person interactions with the public assistance system, including annual recertification (i.e., proving that they remain eligible for benefits), correcting errors, resolving emergencies and reporting changes in circumstances, such as births and illnesses.2 The WeCARE "hub" facilities are located in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. All clients who reside in Staten Island, Queens or Manhattan are assigned to the Manhattan center, Bronx residents are assigned to the Bronx center, and Brooklyn residents are assigned to the Brooklyn center. HRA clients who are not in the WeCARE program (or other specialized HRA programs, such as centers for refugees, senior citizens and the homeless (~ Transcript of October 31, 2005 Deposition of Gregory Gomez at 11» are assigned to the neighborhood center closest to the client's home.3 The special WeCARE services are not

It appears to be HRA's intention that WeCARE clients be able to deal with certain public assistance-related issues, such as changes in circumstances or emergency requests for rent or utilities, by telephone, fax or mail rather than through in-person appearances at HRA facilities. See Def. Mem. at 12. The record indicates, however, that such remote access arrangements are not yet fully in place, or have not been communicated sufficiently to WeCARE staff or clients to enable their effective
utilization by persons whose disabilities present barriers to travel. See the Declarations of Linda W. at 116 and Phyllis F. at, 8, both of whom report she has
been required to travel to her hub centers four times in 2005 alone, to address issues
such as emergency aid to cover rent arrears, deliver requested documents, evaluation of capability to work and recertification. Linda W. further states that she was told by an HRA representative that she was not allowed to handle some issues, such as an
emergency request for rent, via fax (see Declaration of Linda W. at 1 12); Phyllis F.
testifies that she spent $7.00 to fax a copy of her lease to her case worker but was informed that such copy was never received, and that she ultimately delivered the lease
by hand for fear of losing her benefits (see Declaration of Phyllis F. at 1 10).

There are nine neighborhood centers in Brooklyn, nine in Manhattan, six in the Bronx, four in Queens and one on Staten Island. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification ("PI. Mem.") at 3).

LOVELY H VERSION 4{18{06

5

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 6 of 29

available through the neighborhood centers or otherwise to clients who are not assigned to WeCARE.
HRA notified the approximately 18,000 clients who were transferred to WeCARE at the program's inception4 that they could seek accommodation if traveling to the WeCARE center was "impossible" due to a "medical and/or mental health condition."s Id. at 13. Clients who wished to pursue this option were directed to call an HRA telephonic information line (the "Infoline"). After a series of recorded announcements and interactive options, clients who called could reach a live HRA representative.6 These first-line representatives were not empowered to make assignment changes or grant accommodations. Rather, they were instructed to question the clients about their current means of transport to local centers and encourage self-travel to the WeCARE center by whatever means might be available. Clients who wished to pursue a travel-related objection to the assignment had to be persistent enough to call HRA's Office of Constituent and Community Affairs after calling the Infoline and then get through several layers of telephone representatives to reach an official, at which point they were informed that they had to provide medical documentation of the

4

Defendant represents that, between October and December 2004, approximately 2,000

individuals were transferred to the Manhattan WeCARE Job Center, 7,000 individuals

to the Bronx WeCARE Job Center, and 9,000 to the Brooklyn WeCARE Job Center.

See October 31,2005, Deposition of Gregory Gomez at 64-67. At oral argument on

December 13,2005, Defense counsel acknowledged that the number of people who

had been transferred to WeCARE Job Centers before that date was approximately

23,000, and that it is "expected that the program may serve up to 40,000." Dec. 13,

2005 Oral Arg. Tr. at 41.

At oral argument on February 2,2006, Defense counsel represented that a revised notice explaining how to request accommodations was being prepared. Feb. 2, 2006 Oral Arg. Tr. at 83.

6

The record also includes evidence that some callers were simply never able to get

through, either because the number was busy or no one returned their message. See,

~, Declaration of Amalia D. at ~ 6.

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 18/06

6

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 7 of 29

impairing condition for their request to be considered further. See Declaration of Barbara Ramirez Giove at ~~ 6-12. HRA was apparently unable to check its own records for documentation of the client's condition.7 According to Plaintiffs' counsel, by December of 2005 there had been 9,000 calls to the information line, although counsel acknowledged that it cannot be said with certainty how many related to travel-related requests for changes. Dec. 13,2005 Oral Arg. Tr. at 13.8 Transfer of the remaining approximately 17,000 WeCARE program-eligible clients (see supra note 4) has been postponed on consent, pending resolution of the instant motion practice.
The evidence presented to the Court in connection with these motions demonstrates that the hub center assignment of WeCARE participants imposes substantial additional travel burdens, and consequent barriers to receipt of crucial subsistence benefits, on such persons. Plaintiffs have proffered an expert analysis demonstrating that "[t]ravel times to the hub centers were much greater than travel times to the prior job centers. For Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island clients currently assigned to the Manhattan hub center, the travel times more than doubled." Declaration of Richard Faust ("Faust Decl.") at 4. In addition, Plaintiffs have filed eleven declarations by the named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class9 describing HRA's refusal to permit them to attend

At oral argument on February 2, 2006, Defense counsel proffered that it "was a little difficult [to find the medical documentation previously submitted by clients] with the prior contractor with the switchover ... Often documentation we can find is old." Oral Arg. Tr. at 84.

In her opposition memorandum, dated November 18, 2005, Defendant asserted that the Infoline received 623 calls from March 21 to August 31, 2005 in response to the transfer letters. Twenty-one of those individuals were granted an accommodation, consisting of either reassignment to their previous center or a "homebound" designation. Def. Mem. at 14-15.

9

Pursuant to the protective order in place in this matter, the declarations were filed with

the Court unsigned and using pseudonyms. However, signed copies were served on

counsel for Defendant. See April 18, 2006, letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel Kathleen

Kelleher to the Court, docket entry # 61.

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 18/06

7

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 8 of 29

to routine benefit maintenance issues at neighborhood centers and to their consequent tortuous and repeated visits to the hub centers. These unrefuted declarations attest to profound physical, psychological, and/or logistical barriers and burdens arising from the declarants' disabilities, as well as to significant financial burdens arising from disability-related barriers to using public transportation to travel to the hub centers. See,~, Declaration of Amalia D. (declarant suffers from depression, bipolar disorder, rheumatoid arthritis and asthma; used to travel by taxi to neighborhood center at a cost of $7 each way; cannot take public transportation because of claustrophobia and panic attacks and now has to pay $50 (almost half of her monthly welfare grant) to travel to her hub center); Declaration of Phyllis F. (declarant suffers from emphysema, rheumatoid arthritis, depression and cardiac problems that make it hard for her to walk and climb stairs; used to take the bus to her neighborhood center on Staten Island and now has to travel over 2 hours in each direction to reach the hub center in Manhattan; has to spend the day following such a journey in bed recovering because the subway and ferry trip causes her joints to swell); Declaration of Danielle A. (declarant suffers from bipolar disorder and depression, as well as heart disease, and avoids public transportation because crowded places cause anxiety and traveling causes fatigue; used to attend neighborhood center located a fiveminute drive from home and now has to take a cab that costs $40 to get to the hub center in Manhattan); Declaration of Linda W. (declarant suffers from lumbar scoliosis and sciatica, which make it painful for her to walk, sit, stand and climb stairs; used to attend her neighborhood center across the street; is now forced to take the subway to a hub center and must walk up and down approximately 70 stairs en route); and Declaration of Reuben C. (declarant suffers from bipolar
disorder and Hepatitis c.; used to take bus to his neighborhood center; would have to be driven to
Manhattan hub center by his elderly mother.) Defendant's expert, Dr. Swati Desai, asserts that the majority of WeCARE clients'

LOVELY H vERSION 4/18/06

8

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 9 of 29

travel time to the WeCARE hub centers is the same or only slightly longer than their travel time from home to their previously assigned center. Declaration of Dr. Swati Desai, dated November 18, 2005 ("Desai Decl."). This evidence fails to rebut Plaintiffs' demonstration of significant travel burdens associated with involuntary assignments to WeCARE centers because it is premised in part on travel time measured from a centralized hub center maintained by HRA through a former program, rather than from the neighborhood offices, and because it does not take into account the physical accessibility of public transportation or the effect of travel phobias 0r anxiety disorders. See transcript of November 30, 2005 deposition of Dr. Swati Desai at pages 83-84.
Plaintiffs seek certification of a main class and a subclass, and also a preliminary injunction that will "prevent HRA from implementing future involuntary transfers and require the agency to offer an opt out to those who have already been transferred. ,,10 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification ("PI. Mem.It) at 2. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and grants Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (as narrowed by footnote 8 of their opening brief, see supra note 10).

DISCUSSION 1. Class Certification Motion
A. Proposed Class Definitions Plaintiffs propose to define their main class as: "[r]ecipients ofpublic assistance,

10

Plaintiffs' opening brief states that they also seek an injunction to "prevent adverse

case actions ... and correct such actions that have already occurred as a result of the

agency's discriminatory practices; and, ... transfer the named plaintiffs back to their

local centers and provide them with reasonable modifications," (PL Mem. at 2), but

they withdraw these two requests in footnote 8 on page 27 of that brief.

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

9

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 10 of 29

Food Stamps and/or Medicaid in New York City who have a physical, mental or medical impainnent within the meaning ofthe New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law
§ 292(21) (McKinney 2005)[,] and who have received or will receive a notice from HRA
involuntarily transferring their case to one ofthree 'hub centers' in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn." PI. Mem. at 37. In addition, Plaintiffs propose certification of a subclass that would be "comprised of [such main class] members, each ofwho[m] (a) has a physical and/or mental impainnent that substantially limits one or more major life activities, (b) has a record of such an impainnent, or (c) is regarded as having such an impainnent." Id. at 38.

B. Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) Analysis

For each proposed class or subclass, Plaintiffs must first demonstrate that the

grouping meets the four requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): (1) the

class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions oflaw or

fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses ofthe representative parties are typical of the

claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class. The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating

that all of the Rule 23(a) requirements have been met. When, as here, the moving party is also

seeking to certify a subclass, the moving party must demonstrate that the subclass satisfies all of the

Rule 23(a) requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4)(B) ("[w]hen appropriate ... a class may be

divided into subclasses and each subclass treated as a class, and the provisions ofthis rule shall then

be construed and applied accordingly."). also Marisol A. v. Giuliani, No. 95 Civ. 10533, 1998

WL 199927 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 1998) (noting that "[e]ach subclass must independently meet

the requirements of Rule 23(a).").

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

10

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 11 of 29

Additionally, a class action may be maintained only if it qualifies under at least one of the categories provided in Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs here seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2),
which permits the maintenance of a class action if "the party opposing the class has acted or refused
to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole."
"In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met." Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) (internal quotation marks omitted). While the "district court must be persuaded after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites ofRule 23(a) have been satisfied, ... a motion for class certification is not an occasion for examination of the merits ofthe case." Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 291 (2d Cir.1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1107 (2000). "Nothing in either the language or history of Rule 23 ... gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action." Id. Moreover, in considering a motion for class certification, a court must assume the truthfulness of the Plaintiffs' allegations. See Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maint. Corp., 574 F.2d 656,661, n. 15 (2d Cir.1978).

1. Rule 23(a) Requirements

a). Numerosity

Rule 23 (a)(l ) requires that a proposed class be so numerous that joinder is

impracticable. HRA argues that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating

numerosity and points out that some of the clients assigned to WeCARE are not disabled but are,

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 18/06

I I

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 12 of 29

rather, assigned simply because their cases are associated with those of persons assigned to WeCARE on the basis of medical or mental health conditions (the Court will refer to such nondisabled WeCARE clients in this opinion as "associated persons"). HRA has admitted, however, that it has classified at least 20,000 clients as eligible for assignment to WeCARE on the basis of self-identification or identification by HRA as suffering from medical or mental health conditions that impair their ability to work. The numerosity requirement thus is clearly met for the main class.
The numerosity requirement is also met for the subclass. Evidence of exact class size is not required by Rule 23; a good faith estimate is sufficient. See Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 936 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Courts have not required evidence of exact class size or identity of class members to satisfy the numerosity requirement."). Defendants correctly note that Plaintiffs have not specified the exact number of WeCARE clients who would be considered "disabled" under the ADA. However, since limitations on general employability are used to determine WeCARE eligibility and the ADA recognizes "working" as a major life activity whose substantial limitation may bring a person within the purview of the statute,11 there is reason to believe this number is substantial. 12
Finally, with respect to both the larger class and the subclass, many of the additional

11

Under the statute, "[t]he term "disability" means, with respect to an individual-- (A) a

physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life

activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded

as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.c.A. § 12102(2) (West 2005). The regulations

define "major life activities" as "functions such as caring for oneself, performing

manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."

29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (emphasis supplied).

12

Indeed, HRA's own evidentiary proffer indicates that 87.2% of those evaluated for

WeCARE have been classified as "temporarily unemployable secondary to unstable

medical and/or mental health conditions," unemployable for 12 or more months, or

employable with varying degrees of limitations. See supra note 1.

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

12

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 13 of 29

factors that the Second Circuit has identified as relevant to Rule 23(a) numerosity and joinder detenninations favor certification in this case. "Specifically, consolidating the numerous cases into a single class action serves judicial economy; individuals comprising the class are all economically disadvantaged, 'making individual suits difficult to pursue,' and finally, an injunction requiring defendants to comply with the relevant laws 'could affect all potential class members, and individual suits could lead to potentially inconsistent results.'" Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, No. 95 CV 0641, 1996 WL 633382 at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 1996) (citing Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931,935 (2d Cir.1993)).

b). Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires "only that questions of law or fact be shared by the

prospective class, although not all questions oflaw or fact raised need be common." Dura-Bilt

Com. v. Chase Manhattan Com., 89 F.R.D. 87,93 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). Here, there are numerous

common questions, including whether the Plaintiffs were misled as to their right to request

reasonable accommodations, whether they were transferred or are proposed to be transferred into an

unlawfully segregated program, and whether the Defendant's notification and infonnation systems,

particularly insofar as they relate to reasonable accommodations, were so deficient as to have

deprived class members of federal and local law accommodation and program accessibility rights

without due process oflaw. The Second Circuit has approved district court findings of

commonality at "high levels of abstraction," such as "whether each child has a legal entitlement to

the services of which that child is being deprived ... [and] whether defendants systematically have

failed to provide these legally mandated services." Marisol A. v. Guiliani, 126 F.3d 372, 377 (2d

Cir. 1997). Here, the common questions of law and fact are much more concrete, and Plaintiffs

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

13

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 14 of 29

have met their burden.

c). Typicality Typicality "is satisfied when each class member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability." In re Drexel Burnham Lambert, 960 F.2d 285,291 (2d CiT. 1992) (internal citation omitted). "When it is alleged that the same unlawful conduct was directed at or affected both the named plaintiff and the class sought to be represented, the typicality requirement is usually met irrespective of minor variations in the fact patterns underlying individual claims." Robidoux, 987 F.2d at 937938. Here, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing typicality for both the larger class and the subclass, as each class member's claims arise from the same course of allegedly unlawful events. All plaintiffs here claim that their involuntary reassignment to WeCARE "hub" centers violated their rights to be free from disability-based discrimination and denied them due process oflaw.

d). Representativeness

Defendants do not contest the adequacy of class counsel, but assert that "there are

serious questions as to the adequacy of the individual plaintiffs to represent class interests." Dei.

Mem. at 42. They argue that one named Plaintiff might lack standing to sue, as her case was never

transferred to a WeCARE center, and that other named Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate harm as they

have not suffered "adverse case action" as a result of their transfer and have not alleged that they

suffered stigma on account of the transfer.

Defendants' arguments fall short of the mark as to the "representativeness" ofthe

named plaintiffs, in that "[t]wo factors generally inform whether class representatives satisfy the

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 1 8/06

14

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 15 of 29

Rule 23(a)(4) requirement: '(1) absence of conflict and (2) assurance of vigorous prosecution. '" Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter RR Co., 267 F.3d 147, 171 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). Stated another way, in determining whether representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, courts are simply to determine whether "plaintiffs interests are antagonistic to the interest of other members of the class." Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Com., 222 F.3d 52, 60 (2d Cir.2000). Here, Defendant has identified no potential conflicts among class members, and Defendant has conceded that HRA does not question Plaintiffs' counsel's ability to assist Plaintiffs' in conducting a vigorous prosecution. Plaintiffs thus have met the adequacy or representativeness requirement, and all of the other Rule 23(a) requirements as well.

2. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements Plaintiffs proposed class definitions also meet, for both the larger class and the subclass, the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), which allows for the maintenance of a class action if "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). "Cases ofthis nature, alleging systemic failure of governmental bodies to properly fulfill statutory requirements, have been held to be appropriate for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2)." Raymond v. Rowland, 220 F.R.D. 173, 181 (D.Conn. 2004).

C. Class Definition Issues

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' proposed class definitions are unworkable because

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

15

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 16 of 29

they incorporate statutory concepts of what constitutes disability and thus necessarily require

individualized eligibility determinations for each class member. Def. Mem. at 37-40. Defendant

also argues that the main class definition - which draws on state anti-discrimination law for its

breadth is inappropriate in this federal action. As to the latter argument where, as here, each class

member has also asserted a federal claim (Plaintiffs assert that the alleged deprivations of their state

and local law protections against disability discrimination constitute violations of their federal due

process rights), the Court can properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction of their state and local law

claims. A class definition broad enough effectively to address those claims is certainly within the

ambit of Rule 23 in this federal litigation.

Turning back to HRA's first objection to the proposed class definition, the Court

finds that the agency's own admitted criteria for WeCARE program designation encompass the

protected group sufficiently to eliminate the need for incorporation of the explicit statutory

reference. State law prohibits discrimination on the basis of conditions that prevent the exercise of a

normal bodily function or are demonstrable by medically accepted diagnostic techniques (see

discussion infra page 21 ). Because HRA's designation criteria tum on the presence of medical or

mental conditions, a simple reference to WeCARE designation by HRA will suffice to define the

main class.

The Court also finds that incorporation of the ADA's definition of disability in the

definition of the subclass is both workable and appropriate in this case. Under the ADA, "[t]he term

'disability' means, with respect to an individual-- (A) a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.c.A. § 12102(2) (West 2005). The regulations define "major life activities" as "functions such as caring for oneself,

LOVELY H VERS10N 4/ 18/06

16

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 17 of 29
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 29
C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (emphasis supplied). As explained above, the WeCARE screening process includes a BPS evaluation of each client designated as potentially eligible for reassignment on the basis of perceived or self-reported medical or mental impairment. This BPS evaluation process results in a classification indicative of the impact of the impainnent on the person's ability to work, and gives Defendant a unique insight into the limitations and capabilities of class members, putting it in a position to make infonned decisions regarding its conduct in relation to class members to the extent the relief afforded to members of the subclass differs from that ordered in respect to the main class. In addition, disputes as to who is properly in the subclass would likely only arise if an alleged violation is contested as to an individual, rather than as to the whole subclass; resolving such disputes would not be overly burdensome.
Finally, as Rule 23 empowers the Court to revise class definitions in the course of litigation, these definitions can be revisited if they tum out to be insufficiently precise or otherwise inappropriate. The Court will certify a main class consisting of "recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who have received or will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily transferring their case to one of three 'hub' centers in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program." The Court will also certify a subclass of "main class members who (a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (b) have a record of such an impainnent, or (c) are regarded as having such an impainnent."

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

17

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 18 of 29

II. Supplemental Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.c. § 1367(a), district courts are granted the authority to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state or local law claims in an action otherwise brought pursuant to federal question jurisdiction if those claims "are so related to [the federal] claims in the action ... that they form part of the same case or controversy." The Supreme Court has held that this "so related" standard is met if the state and federal claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" and are "such that [a plaintiff] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding." United States Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
Here, it is clear that the state and local law claims do indeed derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and thus are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs' state and local law claims.

III. Preliminary Injunction Motion Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that will "prevent HRA from implementing
future involuntary transfers and require the agency to offer an opt out to those who have already been transferred." PI. Mem. at 2.
Ordinarily, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show "(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief." Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979). Defendant argues that the merits-assessment component of this standard is heightened in this case because, where a preliminary injunction "seeks to stay governmental action

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ I 8/06

18

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 19 of 29

taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme," the moving party must

show "irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits," Bery v. City of New York, 97

FJd 689,694 (2d Cir. 1996), not just sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of the action.

This higher standard "reflects the idea that governmental policies implemented through

presumptively reasoned democratic processes are entitled to a higher degree of deference and should

not be enjoined lightly." Able v. United States, 44 F.3d 128, 131 (2d Cir. 1995). As Plaintiffs are

seeking to enjoin the implementation of a government program intended to improve the delivery of

services beneficial to needy New Yorkers, the Court agrees with Defendant that this higher standard

is appropriate here.

Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs must show not only a likelihood of success on

the merits, but a heightened "clear and substantial" likelihood of success, as Defendant argues that the

injunction would provide Plaintiffs with "substantially all the relief sought" (see Jolly v. Coughlin,

76 F.3d 468, 473 (2d Cir.1996), and Reynolds v. Giuliani, 35 F. Supp. 2d 331, 338

(S.D.N.Y.1999)), and that the injunction sought would alter, rather than maintain, the status quo

(see Lincoln Cercpac v. Health and Hospitals Corp., 920 F.Supp. 488 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)). The Court

need not resolve today the question of whether this heightened standard of "clear or substantial"

likelihood of success is appropriate here, as the Plaintiffs have, for the reasons that follow,

demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits oftheir claim that the involuntary

transfer of WeCARE cases to the hub centers unlawfully segregates class members on the basis of

disability.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's policy of prohibiting WeCARE-eligible clients from

attending to in-person recertifications and other day-to-day public assistance issues at their

neighborhood centers, while permitting non-WeCARE-eligible clients to attend to such matters

LOVEL.Y H VERSION 4/1 8/06

19

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 20 of 29

locally, constitutes prohibited segregation of the disabled and persons associated with them. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim under state and federal law.

A. Likelihood ofSuccess on the Merits 1. State Law Segregation Claims Plaintiffs assert that HRA's policy of requiring WeCARE-eligible aid recipients to access all of their services and conduct their benefits-related transactions exclusively through the hub centers rather than the neighborhood offices constitutes disability-based discrimination in violation of New York Executive Law § 296(2)(a), which is a provision of the New York State "Human Rights Law"; New York Social Services Law § 331; and New York State Department of Social Services regulations published at N.Y. Compo Code R. & Regs. tit. 18, §§ 303.1 and 303.5. Section 296(2)(a) of the state Human Rights Law generally provides that it is an "unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, ... manager, ... agent or employee of any place of public accommodation ... , because of the ... disability ... of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof." "Public accommodation" is defined broadly for purposes of this law to include, inter alia, "establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind, dispensaries, clinics and hospitals." N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). While the statutory definition expressly excludes public libraries and certain educational institutions from the covered class of public accommodations, it does not specifically exempt public assistance-related facilities from its scope. The Social Services statute and regulation upon which Plaintiffs rely include both

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

20

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 21 of 29

general prohibitions of disability-related discrimination in the provision of social services by public
authorities and specific prohibitions on the segregation of recipients in connection with such services.
Section 331(3) of New York's Social Services Law provides that "[n]o social services district shall, in
the exercising of the powers and duties established in this title, permit discrimination on the basis of
... handicap, in the selection of participants ... and the separate use of facilities or other treatment of
participants." N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 331(3) (McKinney 2005). Related regulations provide, in
relevant part:
In the provision of public assistance ... no social services district or any member of its staff shall, on the basis of ... handicap: (2) provide any aid, care, services, other benefits or privileges to an individual which are different, or are provided in a different manner, from that provided to others; (3) subject an individual to segregation or separate treatment in any matter related to his receipt of any aid, care, services, other benefits or privileges;... (6) deny any individual an opportunity to participate in a program through the provision of services; [or] (7) make distinction in relation to use of physical facilities, intake and application procedures, caseload assignments, determination of the amount and type of aid, care, services and other benefits under the program and use thereof.
N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 303.1 (b)(2), (3), (6), (7) (2005).
New York's Human Rights Law defines a "disability" as "a physical, mental or medical
impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic or neurological conditions which
prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function or is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or
laboratory diagnostic techniques." N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(21) (McKinney 2005). Deferring to "[t]he
clear and controlling authority" of the New York Court of Appeals decision in State Div. of Human
Rights V. Xerox Com., 480 N.E.2d 695 (N.Y. 1985), the Second Circuit has recognized that this
definition of "disability" is broader than that contained in the ADA. See Reeves V. Johnson Controls
World Servs., Inc., 140 F.3d 144, 154-56 (2d Cir. 1998).13

13

Although Section 331 of the Social Services Law uses the term "handicap" rather than

the term "disability," as used in the Human Rights Law, the breadth of the handicap

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

21

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 22 of 29
According to the New York Court of Appeals' decision in Xerox, "[t]ypical disability or handicap statutes narrowly defin[e] ['disability'] in the ordinary sense to include only physical or mental conditions which limit the ability to perform certain activities. However in New York the term 'disability' is more broadly defined. The statute provides that disabilities are not limited to physical or mental impairments, but may also include 'medical' impairments. In addition, to qualify as a disability, the condition may manifest itself in one of two ways: (1) by preventing the exercise of a normal bodily function or (2) by being 'demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.'" Xerox, 480 N.E.2d at 698 (quoting N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(20) [now 21]). "Thus, an individual can be disabled under the [Human Rights Law] if his or her impairment is demonstrable by medically accepted techniques; it is not required that the impairment substantially limit that individual's normal activities." Hazeldine v. Beverage Media, Ltd., 954 F. Supp. 697, 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Here, the Plaintiffs are clearly disabled as that term is used under New York law. It is not contested here that the BPS assessment conducted by the HRA vendor uses "medically accepted techniques" to determine whether a client's medical or mental health related work limitations are sufficient to render the client eligible for WeCARE, and that only clients with such limitations and their associated persons are designated to WeCARE. This state definition of disability does not require that the limitation be substantial, only that it be demonstrable, and it is exactly because HRA

nomenclature and its essential similarity to the term "disability" is indicated by a further prohibition in Department of Social Services regulations on utilizing facilities that violate the Human Rights Law. See N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 303.5, which provides that "[a]pplicants for or recipients of public assistance and care may not be placed in or referred to a ...facility which discriminates on the basis of ... handicap [in violation of] ... section 296 of the Executive Law of the State of New York, nor may services be provided which would be supportive of such facility or vendor payments made thereto."

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 18/06

22

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 23 of 29

determines that a client has a demonstrable limitation (or is associated with a person who has a demonstrable limitation) that it classifies a client as WeCARE-eligible. Thus, the Court holds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that they will succeed in establishing that they are disabled persons entitled to protection under the state anti-discrimination law.
As previously explained, the New York Social Services Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder specifically prohibit disability-based segregation and differential treatment in the provision of public assistance. See N.Y. Soc. Servo Law § 331; N.Y. Compo Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 303.1 (b)(2), (3), (6), (7) (2005). When they are involuntarily transferred to a hub center, WeCARE-eligible recipients of public assistance, unlike non-disabled residents, are precluded from attending to recertification and other issues through the neighborhood offices. They, and their associated persons, must instead deal with the hub centers on these issues. This distinction in the provision of services turns solely on WeCARE designation which is, itself, based solely on the presence of a disability. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that this aspect of the WeCARE program violates the antisegregation and differential treatment provisions of the Social Services Law and regulations. Given the clear indication in the specific anti-segregation provisions of the Social Services Law of the breadth of New York's anti-discrimination policies, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have also demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their segregation claim under the Human Rights Law.

2. Federal Segregation Claim The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that involuntary WeCARE hub transfers violate the ADA-

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 18/06

23

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 24 of 29
protected rights of the subclass of members who are disabled within the meaning of that statute. "The ADA both requires all public entities to refrain from discrimination, see [42 V.S.C.A.] § 12132, and specifically identifies unjustified 'segregation' of persons with disabilities as a 'for[m] of discrimination,' ~ §§ [42 U.S.C.A.] 121Ol(a)(2), l2l0l(a)(5)." Olmstead v. L.C. ex reI. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 583 (1999). Segregation under the ADA is permitted only in the specific and narrow circumstance where an agency establishes that such segregation is "necessary to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with aids, benefits or services that are as effective as those provided to others." 28 C.F.R. § 35.l30(d). Even then, individuals with disabilities must be granted "the opportunity to participate in services, programs or activities that are not separate or different, despite the existence of permissibly separate or different programs or activities." 28 C.F.R. § 35.l30(b)(2). The current WeCARE program clearly violates the mandate that persons with disabilities be given the opportunity to participate in mainstream service delivery mechanisms; accordingly, the Court need not reach at this point the question of whether Defendants have demonstrated the necessity of providing WeCARE-related services through separate facilities. 14

14

Defendant argues that injunctive relief should be denied because it is in "substantial

compliance" with the integrated-setting mandates of the anti-discrimination statutes.

This position appears to be premised to a significant degree on the assignment of

associated persons (who are not, presumably, disabled themselves) to the hub centers

along with class members. Even if a program that deliberately identifies and assigns to

separate facilities a discrete portion of the population could ever be said to be in

substantial compliance with a prohibition on segregation, HRA's factual proffers do

not support its argument that the hub centers are not segregated. Only 10% of the

assigned adult clients are non-disabled associated persons (see Cantor Decl. at ~~ 13-

14) and, as explained above, even those associated persons have been assigned to the

hub centers by reason of a finding that the person with whom their case is associated is

disabled. This is nothing short of segregation. Cf. US v. Yonkers Board of Ed., 837

F.2d 1181, 1219 (2d Cir. 1987), holding that, in a racial segregation context, not all or

even most affected persons need be members of a suspect class in order for segregation

to occur.

LOVELY H VERSION 4/1 8/06

24

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 25 of 29

3. Other Claims Because Plaintiffs have met the likelihood of success prong of the preliminary injunction standard as to their state and federal law segregation claims, the Court need not address at this time their reasonable accommodation and other federal, state and local law discrimination-related claims or their due process claims.

B. Irreparable Injury Having found that Plaintiffs have made the requisite substantial showing of likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, the Court now examines whether or not they have satisfied the irreparable injury prong of the preliminary injunction standard. A showing of irreparable harm is the "single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction." Brown v. Guiliani, 158 F.R.D. 251, 264 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (quoting Bell and Howell v. Masel Supply Co., 719 F.2d 42,45 (2d Cir.1983)). "Irreparable harm is an injury that is not remote or speculative but actual or imminent, and for which a monetary award cannot be adequate compensation." Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 37 (2d Cif. 1995) (citation omitted). As explained in the findings of fact detailed above, the evidence before the Court on this motion is sufficient to establish that travel to the WeCARE centers constitutes a hardship for class members. Not only will most class members have to travel further in order to reach the WeCARE hub center they are assigned to than they would have had to travel to reach their neighborhood job center (see Faust Decl. at 4), but the significance of even relatively small increases in travel time is magnified in many cases by the physical and mental barriers to mobility that arise from Plaintiffs' underlying disabilities. The physical and mental trauma suffered by such Plaintiffs cannot be

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 18/06

25

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 26 of 29

adequately compensated in money damages, particularly where the day-to-day mobility challenges they face are exacerbated by anxiety as to whether their safety-net welfare benefits will be terminated if they fail to make the journey. See,~, Decl. of Reuben R. at ~ 8 and Decl. of Phyllis F. at ~ 7.
The risk of irreparable harm in the form of loss of vital subsistence benefits is high because failure to appear for recertification appointments or to respond to requests for additional information could result in discontinuation of benefits for class members. The evidence before the Court demonstrates that at least one class member's benefits have already been terminated for failure to conduct in-person transactions at the hub center. See Declaration of Marliese A. at ~ 12. Access to public assistance is of crucial importance to those eligible for it. See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). "[T]he failure to provide benefits may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he [or she] waits." Henrietta D. v. Guiliani, 119 F. Supp. 2d 181,209 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). For these reasons, the Court finds that the additional travel burdens and obligations imposed by the involuntary WeCARE assignment system put class members at risk of irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. The evidence of record also demonstrates that HRA's proffer of accommodations through its Infoline system and its stated policy of permitting certain transactions to be conducted by phone, fax or mail are insufficient to protect the class against these risks of irreparable harm. See supra page 5 and supra note 2.
The propriety of injunctive relief in connection with the involuntary reassignment of class members to the hub centers is underscored by the nature of the violation. The anti-segregation laws upon which Plaintiffs rely reflect important public policy commitments to equality and access. The statutes and regulations embody strong statements of public policy prohibiting discrimination and differential treatment on the basis of disability. To permit the continued expansion of the current involuntary program and the continued enforcement of involuntary hub center reassignments

LOVELY H VERS'ON 4/ 18/06

26

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 27 of 29

that are already in place pending final adjudication of Plaintiffs' claim for relief would be to turn back the clock not only for the individual who is denied access to the neighborhood center that welcomes her able-bodied neighbors, but also for a society that has made tremendous efforts and strides to improve, rather than constrict, accessibility for and integration of the disabled into all aspects of mainstream life. (Cf. Westchester Disabled On the Move, Inc. v. County of Westchester, 346 F. Supp. 2d 473, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that irreparable harm would occur if voters with disabilities were required to vote at alternative locations or by absentee ballots, and noting that "[t]he ADA sets forth the standards of accessibility that must be met by various public entities and, as such, establishes the level of accessibility that disabled individuals can properly expect. Whether its requirements are met, therefore, provides an appropriate framework for determining whether, in a given case, disabled individuals seeking injunctive relief are at risk of suffering a harm that the law recognizes. ").

IV. Relief For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiffs' application for class
certification and grants Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent that Defendant is hereby prohibited from reassigning class members' (and their associated persons') cases to the hub centers involuntarily. Defendant shall within sixty (60) days of today's date offer WeCARE participants whose cases have already been reassigned to a hub center the option of conducting through their nearest neighborhood center all of the interactions, and receiving through those offices all of the services, that are available to non-disabled benefit recipients through those offices.
Defendant shall consult in good faith with Plaintiffs' counsel to formulate appropriate notification and election procedures and materials to be used in providing the "opt-out" opportunities

LOVELY H VERS'ON 4/ I 8/06

27

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 28 of 29

contemplated by this injunction. The parties shall file with the Court a joint statement describing the procedures and including the forms of notice proposed to be utilized no later than forty (40) days from the date of this Opinion and Order. Any objections to the procedures or notices, and Defendant's response to such objections, shall be set forth in detail in the filing.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby certifies a main class of Plaintiffs consisting of recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who have received or will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily transferring their case to one of three hub centers in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program. The Court hereby certifies a sub-class within the main class, consisting of main class members who (a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (b) have a record of such an impairment, or (c) are regarded as having such an impairment. The Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby granted to the extent that Defendant is hereby prohibited from reassigning class members' (and their associated persons') cases to the hub centers involuntarily. Defendant shall within sixty (60) days oftoday's date offer WeCARE participants whose cases have already been reassigned to a hub center the option of conducting through their nearest neighborhood center all of the interactions, and receiving through those offices all of the services, that are available to non-disabled benefit recipients through those offices. Defendant shall consult in good faith with Plaintiffs' counsel to formulate appropriate notification and election procedures and materials to be used in providing the "opt-out" opportunities

LOVELY H VERSION 4/ 18/06

28

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 62 Filed 04/19/06 Page 29 of 29

contemplated by this injunction. The parties shall file with the Court a joint statement describing the
procedures and including the forms of notice proposed to be utilized no later than forty (40) days from
the date of this Opinion and Order. Any objections to the procedures or notices, and Defendant's
response to such objections, shall be set forth in detail in the filing. The remaining aspects of Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief have been withdrawn. See supra note 10.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York April 19, 2006

~R;~AIN
United States District Judge

LOVELY H VERSION 4/18/06

29

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 66 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 2
ORIGINAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LOVELY H., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 05 Civ. 6920 (LTS)(AJP)

-against-
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Administrator/Comm. New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant.

USDC S D W

:'; '' l i -ECTRONICALJ
c f 3-idC #:

I

FILED
1

i

- OATEFILED: 0 d 1 q I o b

The Court has reviewed carefully the parties' correspondence, dated May 3, May 5 and May 11, 2006, concerning requested modifications to the Court's preliminary injunction order to reflect HRA's plan to close the WeCARE hub centers, and the scope of further discovery in this case. It is hereby

ORDERED, that the provisions of the Court's April 19,2006, Order (1) requiring the parties to formulate and submit to the Court "opt-out" procedures and notifications, and (2) requiring Defendant to offer an "opt-out" opportunity to WeCARE designees within 60 days of the preliminary injunction order are suspended pending the implementation of HRA's plan to close the WeCARE hub centers and reassign WeCARE designees to their respective neighborhood centers. It is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' request that the Court require HRA to consult with them in advance on forms of notification concerning case transfers in connection with the closure of the WeCARE hub centers and case transfers is denied. It is further

5 . 1 8 . 0 6 . ~ ~ ~VERSION 5/ 1 8/06

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 66 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' request that the Court declare voluntary any "call-in" hub center appointments on or after June 19,2006, is denied in light of the regulatory requirement cited in Defendant's May 11, 2006, letter. The Court will expect, however, that call-ins to the hub centers will be kept to the necessary minimum pending the transition of cases to the neighborhood centers. It is further
ORDERED, that the parties shall appear for a conference on May 25, 2006, at 3:30 p.m. to discuss the current scope of the above-captioned action and Plaintiffs' request for discovery concerning accommodations at local neighborhood centers.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York May 18,2006

~ n i t Sdtates District Judge

5.1 8 . 0 6 . F R M

VERSION 51 1 8/06

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., and MICHELE N.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against-
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Administrator/Comm. New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant.

I R
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT ELEmRONIC&Z-vZ FILED
No. 05 Civ. 6920 (LTS)(AJP)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action Plaintiffs, who assert that they are welfare recipients with disabilities who reside in New York City, bring claims under Title I1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 ("the Rehabilitation Act"), the Due Process Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, and various New York State and City civil rights and social services statutes and regulations, on behalf of themselves and a class of New York City welfare recipients with disabilities. On April 19, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and subclass, and granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") from involuntarily reassigning class members' welfare assistance cases to one of three Hub Centers established as part of the WeCARE program. Plaintiffs now move the Court for an order granting them permission to amend their complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), permitting the intervention of additional class members as party plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d) and 24(b), and amending the class definition.

The Court has jurisdiction of the federal constitutional and statutory claims raised in
this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 5 1331 and 1343 and, as explained in the Court's preliminary
injunction and class certification decision, also has supplementaljurisdiction over the related state and local law claims. The Court has considered thoroughly the parties' arguments and submissions. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motions are granted.

BACKGROUND The Court presumes familiarity with the background of this case as detailed in the earlier decision. Lovelv H. v. Egaleston, 235 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Following the Court's April 19,2006, Order, HRA informed the Court of its decision to close the WeCARE Hub Centers and transfer the WeCARE designees' cases back to their neighborhood Job Centers.

DISCUSSION I. Motion to Amend the Com~laint
Plaintiffs move to amend the Complaint in two respects: first, they seek to amend the Complaint to provide a description of events that allegedly happened to one of the original named Plaintiffs, Gloria Q., after the filing of the Complaint; and second, they seek to add greater specificity to some of the claims in the Complaint regarding HRA's alleged denial of reasonable accommodations at the Job Centers. Plaintiffs argue that these amendments will assist the Court in understanding more fully Plaintiffs' claims and will not unduly prejudice Defendant or delay the litigation. Defendant argues that the amendments would be untimely and unduly prejudicial to Defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." "[Tlhis mandate is to be heeded." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

MTA.FRM VERSION 1 1 / 1 5/06

2

If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he [or she] ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his [or her] claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'
- Id. (alterations added).
Clearly, there is no undue delay regarding Plaintiffs' request to update their Complaint
with events that have occurred to Gloria Q. since the filing of the Complaint. Defendants also make
no argument that this specific amendment would be prejudicial, and the Court sees no reason to
believe it will be so. Thus, the request to amend the Complaint with respect to events that have
occurred to Gloria Q. since the filing of the Complaint is granted.
The request to amend the Complaint to add greater specificity to some of the claims in
the Complaint regarding HRA's alleged denial of reasonable accommodations at the Job Centers is
also granted. Although claims regarding denial of reasonable accommodations at the neighborhood
Job Centers were not the primary focus of the original Complaint and have not been the focus of the
litigation thus far, such allegations were included in the Complaint when it was initially filed. See
Complaint at 7 78, alleging that HRA has failed to "adequatelytrain and supervise its staff in local
Job Centers regarding the rights of qualified individuals with disabilities, their rights to receive
benefits and services pursuant to the ADA, and how to provide reasonable accommodations to such
individuals"; at 7 80, alleging that the Job Centers "fail to provide reasonable modifications that
HRA specifically requires its [WeCARE providers to provide to those participating in WeCARE]";
and f 162, requesting that the Court order HRA to "make reasonable accommodations available to
class members . . . at their local welfare centers." Therefore, allowing the Plaintiffs to amend the
Complaint to provide greater specificity regarding these claims will not unduly prejudice Defendant

MTA.FRM VERSION 1 1 / 1 5/06

3

or delay the litigation. Additionally, the Court finds no evidence of the other conditions outlined in Foman that counsel against allowing amendment, such as bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment. Mindful that leave to amend is to be freely given when justice requires, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint.

11. Motion to Add New Party Plaintiffs Plaintiffs seek leave to intervene three' named Plaintiffs who are class members and
who make allegations regarding the denial of reasonable accommodations at Job Centers. They argue that permission to intervene should be granted, as the declarations of these three Plaintiffs present common questions of law and fact, would assist the Court in understanding more fully Plaintiffs' claims and would, in fact, assist the Court and the parties in narrowing the scope of discovery. They also argue that intervention would not delay the litigation or prejudice the rights of the original parties. Defendants oppose the intervention, arguing that this case is nearing resolution and that Plaintiffs' motion is untimely.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2) provides that, upon timely application, anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action "when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common." Rule 24(b)(2) provides that "[iln exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the

1

Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of their motion refers to three named

Plaintiffs on page 5 and four named Plaintiffs on page 9. Because the Plaintiffs'

proposed amended class action complaint (attached as an exhibit to their motion
papers) adds threenamed Plaintiffs to the caption, Courtney B., Laura S. and Eula S.,

and because this appears to be consistent with the declarations attached to their motion

papers, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs seek to intervene three named Plaintiffs.

IVTTA.FRM VERSION 1 1 / 1 5/06

4

rights of the original parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). "Additional relevant factors include the
nature and extent of the intervenors' interests, the degree to which those interests are adequately represented by other parties, and whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented." H.L. Havden Co. of New York. Inc. v. Siemens Medical Systems, h c . , 797 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1986). Courts in this District have held that Rule 24(b)(2) should be construed liberally. Depsafinreid v. Ricks, 417 F. Supp. 2d 403,407 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d) provides that in class actions, the court may make appropriate orders permitting class members "to intervene and present claims or defenses."
As noted above, although they have not been the focus of the litigation to date, claims regarding the alleged denial of reasonable accommodations at local Job Centers have been part of the Complaint since the inception of this litigation. The Court concludes that the intervention of the three additional named Plaintiffs will "significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented," H.L. Havden Co. of New York. Inc., 797 F.2d at 89, and will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to intervene as named Plaintiffs Courtney B., Laura S. and Eula S. is granted.

111. Motion to Amend the Class Definition Finally, Plaintiffs seek an amendment of the definition of the certified class. They
argue that the changed landscape created by HRA's decision to close the hub centers following the Court's April 19,2006, Order has necessitated such a change. The Court originally certified a main class consisting of "recipients of public assistance, food stamps andlor Medicaid who have received or

MTA.FRM VERSION 1 1 / 1 5/06

5

will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily transferring their case to one of three 'hub' centers in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program." Lovely H., 235 F.R.D. at 258. Plaintiffs ask the Court to amend the main class definition to cover "recipients of public assistance, food stamps andlor Medicaid who are or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program." Defendants argue that this amended definition would substantially broaden the scope of the litigation and point out that any class certified by the Court must meet Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(l)(C) provides that "[aln order under Rule 23(c)(l) may be altered or amended before final judgment." Because of HRA's decision to close down the Hub Centers associated with the WeCARE program, notifications of involuntary transfers will no longer be sent out. However, as discussed above, class members continue to assert viable claims in this case regarding alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodations at the neighborhood Job Centers. Thus, amending the class definition to focus on designation to WeCARE rather than receipt of a transfer notice is an appropriate action at this time. The Court notes that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) will still be met under this amended definition, for substantially the same reasons the Court outlined in its earlier class certification decision. Lovelv H., 235 F.R.D. at 254- 257. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to amend the main class definition is granted. Because the subclass is defined in terms of the main class, there is no need to amend the subclass definition as well.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to amend the Complaint, to intervene three additional named party Plaintiffs and for an amendement of the class

MTA.FRM VERSION 1 1 / 1 5/06

6

definition. Class members Courtney B., Laura S. and Eula S. are granted permission to intervene as named Plaintiffs. The main class definition is amended to be "recipients of public assistance, food stamps andlor Medicaid who are or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program."
Plaintiffs shall serve and file an amended complaint no later than two weeks from the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York November 15,2006

United States District Judge

WA.FRM VERSION 1 1 / 1 5/06

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 59

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., MICHELE N., COURTNEY B., LAURA S., EULA S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
- against -
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Administrator/Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,

05 Civ. 6920 (LTS) (AJP)
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------x

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, for their amended complaint against defendant

allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND HISTORY OF THIS PROCEEDING

1. This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under Title II of

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the

Due Process Clause of the United States and New York State Constitutions, and New York State

and City civil rights statutes and regulations.

2. This action involves allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability by the

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) at “hub centers” and Job Centers in

New York City operated by HRA. The case arises out of HRA’s WeCARE (“Wellness,

Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment”) program. As WeCARE was

originally conceived, public assistance recipients who have a mental or physical impairment had

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 59
their public assistance cases transferred from their local Job Center to one of three “hub centers” in the Bronx, Brooklyn, or Manhattan. They are assigned to one of two WeCARE vendors, which were charged with assessing their medical and physical impairments and either providing appropriate rehabilitative services or assisting in obtaining permanent disability benefits.
3. Although the cases of WeCARE clients were assigned to hub centers, the WeCARE vendors did not operate out of those hub centers; to the contrary, their offices, and those of their subcontractors, are located elsewhere throughout New York City. The hub centers offered no unique services to disabled clients. Indeed, with regard to public assistance recipients, the hub centers functioned just like ordinary Job Centers – except that almost all clients assigned to the hub centers were disabled.
4. In the initial phase of this case, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting further case transfers from local Job Centers to the hub centers. Plaintiffs alleged that the involuntary transfers to hub centers that were segregated by disability violated federal and state laws prohibiting disability discrimination. Plaintiffs also alleged that the procedure HRA adopted for requesting and obtaining an exemption from transfer violated due process of law. Plaintiffs moved for certification of a class of public assistance recipients who have a disability within the meaning of the State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(21) (McKinney’s 2005), and who have received or will receive a notice transferring their case to a hub center, and a subclass consisting of all class members who have a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
5. On April 19, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class and
2

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 59
subclass pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 235 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The main class is defined as:
recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who have received or will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily transferring their case to one of three hub centers in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program. Lovely H., 255 F.R.D. at 263. The subclass is defined as: “main class members who (a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (b) have a record of such an impairment, or (c) are regarded as having such an impairment.” Id. 6. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined HRA from reassigning class members’ cases to the hub centers involuntarily. The Court afforded HRA sixty days to offer WeCARE participants whose cases have already been reassigned to a hub center the option of conducting through their nearest neighborhood center all of the interactions, and receiving through those offices all of the services, that are available to non-disabled benefit recipients through those offices. Id. at 262-63. 7. In response to the Court’s order, HRA notified the Court that it intended to close the three hub centers and transfer the cases of WeCARE participants back to their local Job Centers. On May 18, 2006, the Court suspended that portion of the April 19 order that required the formulation of opt-out procedures and notifications “pending the implementation of HRA’s plan to close the WeCARE hub centers and reassign WeCARE designees to their respective neighborhood centers.” (Order filed May 19, 2006.) 8. In the brief period that the hub center system was operational, more than 10,000
3

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 59
disabled class members had their cases closed; thousands more had their benefits reduced due to sanctions imposed during that period.
9. Plaintiffs now continue to seek reasonable accommodations that would enable them to receive HRA services at local Job Centers in a way that does not discriminate against them because of their disabilities.
JURISDICTION 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). The action arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 11. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over plaintiffs’ claims under the New York State Constitution and state and local laws prohibiting disability discrimination. 12. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).
PARTIES 13. Plaintiff LOVELY H. lives in Arverne in the Far Rockaway section of Queens with her elderly, disabled mother. In January 2005, she received a notice transferring her public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid case from her local welfare center located three blocks from her home in Far Rockaway, Queens to “hub” center 39 in Union Square, Manhattan – ninety minutes away from her home. She suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA.
4

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 5 of 59
14. Plaintiff GLORIA Q. lives in the Jackson Heights section of Queens. In January 2005, she received a notice involuntarily transferring her public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid case from her local welfare center located fifteen minutes from her home in Queens to “hub” center 39 in Union Square, Manhattan – over one hour away.
15. Ms. Q.’s case was subsequently transferred to Center 53 in Queens. Since being transferred to Center 53, Ms. Q. has been threatened with at least one case closing. Despite Ms. Q.’s having advised the Job Center in advance of an erroneously scheduled appointment and the Job Center worker’s agreement to cancel the appointment, which is reflected in Ms. Q.’s records, Ms. Q.’s failure to attend the appointment resulted in a threatened case closing. Moreover, Ms. Q.’s request that another appointment be rescheduled due to a conflicting medical appointment was denied. Ms. Q. seeks the ability to reschedule or cancel appointments at the Job Center where they conflict with medical appointments. Ms. Q. suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA. Ms. Q. has been denied reasonable accommodations by her Job Center 53.
16. Plaintiff MICHELE N. lives in Howard Beach, Queens with her sister. In April, 2005, she received a notice transferring her public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid case from her welfare center located in Jamaica, Queens, to “hub” center 39 located in Union Square, an hour away from her home. She suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA.
17. Plaintiff COURTNEY B. lives in Brooklyn, New York and her welfare case is assigned to Job Center 78. She has requested reasonable accommodations designed to address
5

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 6 of 59
her problems with understanding notices, keeping appointments and obtaining requested documentation, all of which HRA has denied. During the time she has been requesting such accommodations, she has been subject to at least four case closings or attempts at case closings by HRA. Courtney B. suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA.
18. Plaintiff LAURA S. lives with her son in a homeless shelter for families located on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Her public assistance case is assigned to Riverview Center located in East Harlem, which serves clients in the shelter system. Ms. S. has been subject to at least one case closing since having her case assigned to Riverview. Ms. S. seeks to be able to call her center to resolve problems, or if she goes in person, to avoid having to wait an unreasonable length of time to speak to someone. Ms. S. also seeks transfer from the Riverview Center to the Job Center that is closest to her neighborhood, since traveling to Riverview is a hardship for her. Ms. S. suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA.
19. Plaintiff EULA S. lives in the Bronx with her mother and two daughters. Her public assistance case is assigned to Center 46. Ms. S. has been subject to at least one case closing because of her inability to get to an appointment rescheduled because of a conflicting medical appointment. She seeks a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to reschedule appointments when she has conflicting medical appointments and avoid waiting an unreasonable amount of time at her Job Center. She suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law and the ADA.
6

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 7 of 59
20. Defendant VERNA EGGLESTON is the Commissioner of HRA, the executive agency of the City of New York which has responsibility for the operation and administration of public assistance programs for New York City residents, including: cash assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Commissioner Eggleston is sued in her official capacity.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 21. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22. The plaintiff class consists of recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program. 23. The subclass consists of main class members who (a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (b) have a record of such an impairment, or (c) are regarded as having such an impairment. 24. The class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. According to HRA, over 45,000 adults receiving public assistance report that they suffer from an impairment that limits their functioning. Most of these persons are or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program. 25. The rules, policies, procedures, and methods of administration of the government agencies that administer and supervise public assistance in New York City that form the factual basis for this complaint are common to all members of the class and subclass. The relief sought
7

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 8 of 59
will apply to all of them. 26. Questions of law common to the members of the class and subclass include
whether defendant Eggleston has violated: a. the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and New York State Constitution by providing plaintiffs with misleading notice regarding the transfer of their cases to hub centers and that did not offer them a right to challenge the transfers; and b. federal, state and city laws prohibiting disability discrimination based on HRA’s segregation of plaintiffs, failure to provide them with an option to remain at their local centers, disparate treatment of plaintiffs, failure to provide reasonable modifications, and use of methods of administration that have a disparate impact.
27. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the entire class and subclass.
28. The named plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately representing the class and subclass and protecting its interests. Counsel for the plaintiffs, the Legal Aid Society, is a legal services organization with substantial experience in class action litigation on behalf of persons with disabilities and persons eligible for public assistance. Counsel are aware of no conflicts among members of the proposed plaintiff class and subclass.
29. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class and subclass would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant.
30. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class and subclass would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members which would, as a practical matter, substantially impair the ability of other members to protect their interests.
8

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 9 of 59
31. The defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class and subclass, making appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class and subclass as a whole.
FACTS COMMON TO THE CLASS Basic Public Assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid:
The Scope of Subsistence Level Benefits 32. HRA is responsible for administering basic subsistence level benefits for indigent New Yorkers, including cash assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Two types of cash assistance are provided: Family Assistance, which provides cash assistance to indigent families with children under 18 years of age, and Safety Net Assistance, which provides cash assistance to poor persons whose needs are not otherwise met by any other assistance program. Food Stamps are designed to enable poor New Yorkers to obtain food to maintain a healthy diet. The Medicaid program enables low-income individuals to access health care and medication. 33. Each of these public benefit programs provides subsistence-level benefits to poor New Yorkers based upon their income and need for assistance. The maximum amount of public assistance cash benefits that will be provided to an individual for a month is $352.10; a mother with one child will receive a maximum of $501.50. The maximum amount of Food Stamps that will be provided to an individual per month is $149; a mother and child will receive a maximum of $274.
Accessing Benefits: The Local Welfare Center 34. Poor New Yorkers in need of cash assistance, Food Stamps or Medicaid can apply for these benefits at one of 29 local welfare offices called “Job Centers” located throughout the
9

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 10 of 59
five boroughs of New York City and operated by HRA. There are nine centers in Brooklyn, nine centers in Manhattan, six centers in the Bronx, four centers in Queens and one center on Staten Island. There are also several centers that serve special populations such as veterans, refugees and people living in the City’s homeless shelter system.
35. Once a case is opened and an individual is receiving public assistance, Food Stamps and/or Medicaid, a recipient must “recertify,” i.e. prove that she continues to remain eligible for benefits. Under current HRA practices recipients must recertify in person at the Job Center at least every six months.
36. A recipient must also return to her Job Center to have her case adjusted every time she has a “change in circumstance” such as: when she gets a job; when she loses a job; when she needs to change day care arrangements for her child so she can work or she needs to stay at home to care for a child with a serious illness or disability rather than attend a work assignment; when she has a baby; or when a family member moves out of the house.
37. Recipients must also return to their Job Centers to correct any errors in the amount of cash or Food Stamps they receive and to deal with any problems accessing their benefits. Finally, welfare recipients return to their welfare centers to resolve emergencies and to secure benefits to prevent eviction and utility shut-offs.
Assessment of Ability to Participate in Work Activities 38. As a condition of receiving public assistance in New York State, all recipients must be engaged in work activities unless they are exempted from participating in such activities. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 335-b.
10

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 11 of 59
39. Individuals who are ill, incapacitated, or deemed disabled are exempt from work activities. N.Y. Soc Serv Law § 332(1).
40. Individuals who have functional limitations are deemed “work limited” and may be assigned to work activities only if the assignment is consistent with the individual's treatment plan, if a social services official determines that such person is able to perform the work assigned, and such assignment will assist the individual's transition to self-sufficiency. Where no treatment plan exists, the work activities must be consistent with the individual's mental and physical limitations. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 335-b(5)(e).
41. As part of the application process, and on an ongoing basis thereafter, HRA must determine whether an applicant or recipient is exempt from work activities.
42. All of the individual’s limitations must be communicated to the person supervising the work assignment. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 335-b(5)(f).
43. HRA is required to inquire at application, recertification, or whenever it has reason to believe that a physical or mental impairment may prevent the individual from fully engaging in these work activities. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 332-(b)(1).
44. HRA is aware that a significant percentage of public assistance recipients in New York City experience serious health, mental health, or other disability issues that prevent them from fully or partially engaging in traditional employment activities, and that render them either permanently disabled, unable to engage in work activities for a stated period of time, or work limited.
45. According to HRA, in December 2004, over half (55.7%) of public assistance
11

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 12 of 59
recipients with children were found to be fully or partially unable to participate in work. HRA’s Past Policy: Most Recipients Were Served at Their Local Job Centers No Matter How Disabled
46. Beginning in or before 1997, HRA contracted with a private vendor, HS Systems, Inc. (“HS Systems”) to assess those individuals it had reason to believe had a physical or mental impairment that may have prevented the individual from fully engaging in work activities.
47. For this purpose, HS Systems evaluated the individuals, and determined their abilities to engage fully in work activities. The contractor determined whether individuals were either fully able to engage in work activities, exempt from work activities, or work limited with stated functional limitations. The categories of limitations reported to HRA by HS Systems included: limitations on travel; limitations on interactions with others; limitations related to bladder and bowel functioning; limitations on breathing and environmental conditions; limitations on learning; and limitations on manual tasks.
48. Based on these contractor ratings, HRA, in turn, took one of the following actions: exempted those individuals altogether from work activities; provided them with a modified assignment to account for their functional limitations; required them to attend a rehabilitation or “wellness” program run by a contractor to become medically and/or vocationally ready for a job in the future; or determined they had no limitations and assigned them to a work activity without limitation.
49. Until November 2004, nearly all applicants and recipients who were evaluated for work limitations continued to be served at their local Job Center, no matter what the outcome of the assessment of their ability to engage in work activities. Although some work-limited or
12

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 13 of 59
medically exempt clients’ work program requirements were administered by a single, centralized office, nearly all of these clients could continue to go to their local Job Center to attend to their cases, regardless of whether they were found to be completely exempt from work activities, work-limited, or fully able to engage in work activities.
The Consequences of Missing Appointments 50. HRA conditions receipt of public benefits on satisfaction of many requirements, among them on-time attendance at many appointments, including face-to-face recertification, eligibility verification, and Office of Child Support Enforcement appointments. See, e.g., N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 131(5); 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 351.21 & 369.2(b). In addition, clients must submit documentation of numerous pieces of information and respond to requests for information within strict deadlines (often ten calendar days of the request). See, e.g., 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 351.1-2; 351.1(b)(iv), 22(b) & (c). 51. In addition, receipt of public assistance and Food Stamp benefits is contingent on satisfaction of public assistance work program requirements, including establishing an exemption, see 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 385.2, or participating in work activities if one is not exempt. See 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 385.9. 52. Whenever a benefits recipient fails to report on time for a mandatory appointment, HRA initiates an “adverse case action.” There are at least two common types of adverse case actions – case closings and sanctions. A case closing means that the public assistance, Food Stamps, and/or Medicaid case is closed for every person in the household. See 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 351.22(b). Under some circumstances, a household member can be penalized by being removed
13

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 14 of 59
from the household budget or by a 25% reduction in the household grant. See, e.g.,18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 252.30(d)(1) & (4); 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 385.12(b).
53. A sanction eliminates the recipient’s pro rata share of cash and food stamps for a pre-determined amount of time. See, e.g., 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 352.30(d)(2)-(3); 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 385(d). The computer system used by HRA requires worker input to ensure that clients do not receive sanctions or case closings. Unless a worker (1) affirmatively informs the system that the client attended the appointment successfully or (2) cancels or reschedules the appointment, the system generates an adverse case action notice automatically.
54. This computer program system, in which the “default” result of inaction or a mistake by an HRA worker results in the automatic initiation of a sanction, is commonly referred to as “auto-posting.”
55. Moreover, even where an HRA caseworker’s notes or other information in HRA’s possession indicates that an appointment should be cancelled or rescheduled, auto-posting may initiate the sanction process.
56. A recipient who is not exempt from public assistance and Food Stamp work requirements and who fails without good cause to comply with any work requirement, is sanctioned. For example, if a client misses a day of a vocational rehabilitation program without documentation of good cause for absence on that particular day, she is sanctioned. HRA initiates the sanction process unless its computer is told not to do so. If there is only one person in the household, the public assistance and Food Stamps cases are closed completely for a fixed period of time. (Under New York State law, work sanctions do not apply to Medicaid. N.Y. Soc. Serv.
14

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 15 of 59
Law § 366(1)(a)(1).) For recipients without children, the first sanction lasts for a minimum of 90 days; the next is for a minimum of 150 days; after that, all sanctions are for a minimum of 180 days. For recipients with children, the sanction removes the pro rata share of the recipient’s public assistance and Food Stamp benefits. The first sanction is until compliance, the second for a minimum of three months, and thereafter, for a minimum of six months. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 342.
57. Recipients who are exempt from work rules, including those exempt due to disability, may not be sanctioned for work-rule violations. Nonetheless, they are required to attend a host of mandatory appointments, including appointments for medical evaluations, and treatment. If they fail to appear for these mandatory appointments, HRA closes their public assistance and Food Stamp cases. For a recipient who has been exempted from work due to disability, this means that if she misses an appointment to be medically tested or otherwise verify her disability, her case will be closed. Appearance at those appointments is considered a condition of eligibility.
58. The process of “un-doing” a case closing or sanction requires traveling to an inperson appearance at a city or state office to attend what is known as either a “conciliation” appointment or an administrative fair hearing. At this in-person appearance, a client must demonstrate “good cause” to stop the sanction or case closing to get her case reopened and her benefits restored. Often this is not a simple matter. For example, even where a client has a chronic medical condition like asthma, which may cause her to predictably miss some appointments, HRA often expects the client to produce a doctor’s note or some evidence beyond
15

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 16 of 59
her own statements as to why she missed an appointment on that particular day. Whether she has such evidence or not, she then must travel to the city or state office to present the reasons “good cause” should be granted.
HRA’s Policy: Disabled Recipients Were Forced Out of Their Local Job Centers to Segregated Centers Located Distances from their Homes 59. In order to provide employment-related services to clients with physical and mental impairments, HRA implemented a new program called the Wellness, Comprehensive, Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment program (the “WeCARE Program”). HRA has contracted with two private vendor organizations, Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc. (known as “FEGS”) and Arbor Education & Training, L.L.C. (“Arbor E&T”), to deliver the services under the WeCARE Program. The assessment services provided by the WeCARE vendors have taken the place of the medical evaluation services formerly provided by HS Systems. These vendors are charged with assessing 45,000 HRA clients with mental and physical impairments and providing them with appropriate rehabilitative services or assisting them in getting permanent disability benefits. 60. The WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors serve clients at various sites in the five boroughs, but not at the Job Centers, including the hub centers.
Segregated Administration of Benefits Cases of Physically and Mentally Impaired Clients
61. As originally implemented, the public benefits cases of WeCARE Program clients were to be administered at Job Centers that had been designated “hub” centers or “WeCARE job centers.” These centers performed the same operations to administer public assistance, Food
16

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 17 of 59
Stamps, and Medicaid as other Job Centers throughout the city. 62. There were three such centers: the Union Square Center (39) in Manhattan, the
Fulton Center (61) in downtown Brooklyn, and the Concourse Center (45) in the Bronx. These hub centers served clients with physical or mental impairments. HRA transferred cases of nonimpaired clients out of these centers.
63. Although WeCARE clients were from all five boroughs of New York city, there were no “hub” centers in Staten Island or Queens. Staten Island and Queens clients with physical or mental impairments were to be served at the Union Square Center in Manhattan.
64. WeCARE Program vendor staff were not located at the “hub” centers, nor are they located at any other Job Centers, despite the fact that one of the contractors, Arbor E&T, stated in its contract submissions registered with the City of New York that it could “co-locate” WeCARE Program staff at Job Centers throughout the City.
65. HRA issued instructions to its own welfare center workers concerning the WeCARE Program. These instructions, set forth in the “WeCARE Policy Directive,” did not direct HRA workers to provide all of the type of accommodations to clients that are required of the WeCARE Program vendors. Thus, from the perspective of disabled clients, the “hub” center was no different from the local Job Center from which their case was transferred. It offered no special services or even the type of simple modification measures required of vendors. See ¶¶ 103-108, infra (describing reasonable modifications required of vendors). The hub center plays no substantive role in the WeCARE Program. The hub centers amounted to mere “shells,” centralized repositories for the cases of disabled persons. The only difference was location. The
17

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 18 of 59
result of the transfer to segregated “hub” centers was that most disabled clients had to travel farther to attend all of the required appointments at their welfare centers or to seek assistance from those centers.
Transfer of Public Assistance Cases to Segregated WeCARE “Hub Centers” 66. Starting in November 2004, HRA began transferring the public benefits cases of all 45,000 individuals whom its medical contractor found had physical or mental impairments and resulting functional limitations that affected their ability to work to these same three “hub” center locations in the City. 67. HRA also transferred public assistance cases of non-disabled households out of the “hub” centers to other Job Centers in order to make room for disabled transferees. 68. As a result of these transfers, HRA’s local welfare centers had virtually no clients with disabilities, and nearly all clients with disabilities were either transferred or designated for transfer. 69. HRA consciously made its hub centers into segregated centers dedicated almost exclusively to persons with disabilities, while preventing these individuals from being served at their local centers. 70. HRA instructed its workers that when a new applicant has a functional limitation on work activities, the agency must transfer that case to one of its three “hub centers,” instead of maintaining the case at the local center where the applicant applied for benefits. 71. Because of this change, tens of thousands of recipients with work limitations had to travel to their “hub center,” for example: in order to recertify eligibility; every time they had a
18

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 19 of 59
“change in circumstance”; every time it became necessary to correct an error in the amount of cash or Food Stamps they receive or to deal with problems accessing their benefits; and when it was necessary to secure emergency benefits such as payments to prevent eviction and utility shutoffs.
72. Clients whose cases were transferred to a hub center, and who attempted to obtain emergency benefits from their local Job Centers, were told by local center staff that they must travel to their hub center to obtain these benefits.
WeCARE Program Services Are Not Provided At Hub Centers So Transfer of Cases Was Unnecessary
73. It was unnecessary to segregate the provision of services to disabled persons by transferring their cases to a limited number of hub centers.
74. The WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors provide services at various locations throughout the city; they never provided any services at the hub centers.
75. HRA’s own workers staffed the hub centers and they performed essentially the same functions as are performed at all other Job Centers. Those functions included conducting recertifications, adjusting benefits, correcting payment problems, and issuing emergency benefits like rent arrears grants, and payments to avoid utility shut-off.
76. Because the actual services provided by WeCARE vendors and subcontractors were never located at segregated hub centers, and because the work performed by HRA’s own workers at hub centers was basically no different from the work performed at local centers, it was entirely unnecessary to transfer the public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid cases of disabled persons to a limited number of segregated hub centers.
19

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 20 of 59
HRA Sent Transferred Clients Confusing Letters with Misleading Information About the Right to Request Reasonable Modifications
77. Initially, HRA sent notices to about 23,000 recipients of public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid that their cases had been/would be transferred to a new center. HRA transferred these recipients because their records showed they had one or more mental and/or physical impairments. HRA made no exceptions for persons for whom known impairments could make it difficult to get to a hub center at a greater distance from their homes. HRA did not notify recipients of any option to continue to receive benefits or services at their local Job Center.
78. The text of the notice sent to recipients whose cases were being transferred stated: Upon receipt of this notice, your case will be serviced by the new Center whose name and address is listed on the top left corner of this notice. If there is any change on your situation or if you need to call the center, please use the telephone number on this notice. 79. The notice failed to provide any option but to be involuntarily transferred to this segregated, “hub center.” The notice failed to inform recipients about procedures to follow that would permit them to continue receiving services at their local welfare center. The notice failed to apprise recipients of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The notice failed to specify what constituted a “change in your situation,” making it difficult for recipients to know what is required of them with respect to the new center. The notice failed to indicate that recipients could continue to seek emergency benefits from their local Job Center, regardless of whether their case has been transferred to a “hub center.” 80. On March 18, 2005, HRA sent a subsequent notice to these 23,000 recipients,
20

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 21 of 59
informing them: Recently, you were notified by mail that your public assistance case was transferred to the: WeCARE Job Center #, [mailing address of center] This center will serve public assistance recipients who are WeCARE Program participants. Your public assistance benefits, services, and recertification will be handled by the Center to which your case was assigned, whose staff will receive special training in the services WeCARE offers, and will be better equipped to coordinate your eligibility needs with your WeCARE activities. However, if you have a medical and/or mental health condition that makes it impossible for you to travel to your WeCARE Job Center, or if your inability to travel has caused you to miss an appointment at the WeCARE Job Center, you may telephone the HRA Infoline at (877) 472-8411 to ask for information how to obtain a reasonable accommodation. [sic.] 81. In the March 18, 2005 notice, HRA misled clients by informing them that it must
be “impossible for you to travel” to hub centers in order to inquire about obtaining a reasonable accommodation. This language discouraged clients from contacting HRA unless they met this misleading standard. The same misleading information was incorporated in the transfer letters that were issued since that time.
82. HRA’s March 18, 2005 notice did not explain whether recipients may choose to continue receiving services at their local welfare centers. The notice failed to explain the term “reasonable accommodation.” The notice failed to apprise recipients of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The notice failed to indicate whether disabled recipients could continue to seek emergency benefits from their local welfare center, regardless of whether their case had been transferred to a “hub center.”
21

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 22 of 59
83. Due to a computer error, HRA mistakenly included the wrong names and identifying information on 17,000 of these notices. Thus, on March 22 and 23, 2005, HRA sent a third notice to 17,000 of the 23,000 transferred individuals, instructing them to destroy or return the second notice they had received and reiterating the information from the second March 18, 2005 notice.
84. HRA used another similar form letter to tell clients that their case has been transferred to a hub center.
85. An analysis by the Word Perfect word processing software feature called Grammatik reveals that the initial transfer notice, the March 18, 2005 notice and the March 2223, 2005 notice sent by HRA to individuals with disabilities who had been transferred to hub centers were drafted at a reading level that requires more than a 15th grade education.
No Meaningful Opportunity to Challenge a Transfer to a Hub Center 86. Disabled clients whose cases were closed because they have difficulty traveling to a hub center for a mandatory appointment had no opportunity to challenge their assignment to a hub center. Although a client could challenge the case closing or sanction at a conciliation appointment at the Job Center or a State administrative fair hearing, even if she prevailed and succeeded in getting her case reopened and her benefits restored, she wasl be unable to challenge her assignment to a hub center. This relief was not available at a conciliation or fair hearing. Thus, disabled clients faced an ongoing threat of having their cases closed numerous times due to travel hardships and other problems attributable to the involuntary transfer to a hub center.
22

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 23 of 59
Failure to Provide Reasonable Modifications, Inadequacy of Training and Supervision 87. Reasonable modifications in the defendant’s policies, practices, procedures, and
methods of administration are necessary to enable plaintiffs to apply for, successfully obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid.
88. Reasonable modifications in the defendant’s policies, practices, and procedures are necessary to afford plaintiffs an opportunity to apply for, obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance on terms equal to and as effective as those enjoyed by non-disabled persons.
89. HRA has failed to adequately train and supervise its staff in local Job Centers regarding the rights of qualified individuals with disabilities, their rights to receive benefits and services pursuant to the ADA, and how to provide reasonable accommodations to such individuals.
90. HRA failed to adequately train and supervise its staff at hub centers regarding the rights of qualified individuals with disabilities, their rights to receive benefits and services pursuant to the ADA, and how to provide reasonable accommodations to such individuals.
91. HRA does not provide in a timely way, information about the known physical and mental impairments and accommodation needs of clients necessary to allow HRA staff to provide needed accommodations.
92. HRA does not have effective procedures in place to accept and act upon requests for reasonable accommodations at the Job Center level and to ensure that any accommodations made as a result of such requests are carried out.
93. HRA has appointed a person with the “ADA Compliance Officer” but has failed
23

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 24 of 59
to delegate to that person the authority necessary to direct HRA staff to take such measures necessary to comply with the agency’s responsibilities under the ADA and/or state law.
94. HRA does not have effective procedures in place to ensure that when determinations are made by the HRA ADA Compliance Officer to grant accommodation requests, such accommodations are, in fact, implemented at the Job Center level.
95. HRA knows or has reason to know that plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class, all of whom have disabilities within the meaning of the ADA and/or state law, often require reasonable accommodations like telephoning, sending letters, making home visits, and/or providing case management services in order meaningfully to access their benefits.
96. HRA has failed to put systems in place which would enable plaintiffs to utilize reasonable accommodations in the form of phones, mail or faxes to communicate with HRA Job Centers.
97. HRA does not have effective policies, procedures or systems in place at Job Centers which would enable plaintiffs to reschedule appointments, to schedule appointments at flexible times, to schedule appointments or to minimize waiting times at Job Centers as reasonable accommodations. HRA does not have effective policies or procedures regarding inperson appointments at neighborhood centers which would allow disabled clients to comply with the conditions of eligibility by any means other than in-person appointments at Job Centers.
98. HRA does not have effective policies or procedures to permit its own staff at Job Centers to accommodate clients’ needs by rescheduling appointments. HRA’s computer systems do not permit HRA staff at Job Centers to reschedule certain categories of appointments, even
24

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 25 of 59
when necessary as an accommodation for a disabled client. 99. HRA does not have procedures in place to prevent its “autoposting.” computer
systems from initiating and causing a case closing or sanction automatically when a disabled individual cannot comply with an eligibility requirement or employability requirement because of a disability.
100. As a matter of policy, HRA fails to investigate whether a client had good cause for failing to comply with a program requirement due to a disability before initiating the process of closing the case or issuing a sanction to the degree that relevant information about clients’ limitations already obtained by or provided to the agency is routinely ignored or disregarded.
101. HRA does not have systems in place to allow transfers to a different Job Center to accommodate a travel hardship.
102. Local Job Centers fail to provide reasonable modifications that HRA specifically requires its WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors to provide clients participating in WeCARE Program services. Hub centers also failed to provide reasonable modifications that HRA specifically requires its WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors to provide clients participating in WeCARE Program services
103. Specifically, the WeCARE Program vendors and subcontractors, though not the hub centers or Job Centers, are to provide the following types of reasonable modifications as a form of case management:
(a) “Engagement,”which involves ongoing contact with disabled clients initiated by vendor staff, as frequently as is clinically necessary;
25

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 26 of 59
(b) “Outreach,” which involves the vendor taking progressive escalating steps to engage or re-engage disabled clients. For example, when an individual “fails to report” (FTR) for an appointment or “fails to comply” (FTC) with an activity or appointment, the WeCARE Program vendor is required to contact the individual by telephoning, sending letters, making collateral contacts with family members or others, and making home visits. An adverse action, such as a sanction or case closing, cannot be taken until escalating outreach has failed.
(c) “Facilitation” requires the WeCARE Program vendor to work with a disabled client to promote attendance at scheduled WeCARE Program appointments, providing necessary reasonable accommodations, including escorts where appropriate.
(d) “Monitoring of Compliance,” which involves various steps by which WeCARE Program vendor staff monitor and evaluate a client’s progress in the program.
(e) “Crisis intervention,” which is provided by the WeCARE Program vendor as appropriate to identify early warning signs of crisis and/or relapse and to intervene timely and assist the client in obtaining emergency services.
104. The WeCARE Program vendor is also to take steps to ensure that needed accommodations are identified, recorded, and provided by the vendor or its sub-contractors. At the initial WeCARE Program Assessment Appointment, the vendor is supposed to determine the accommodations needed by each client to participate successfully in the WeCARE Program assessment process. The vendor is also supposed to inform the client about the right to accommodations in all WeCARE Program services.
105. In its report on the assessment, the WeCARE Program vendor is to identify,
26

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 27 of 59
among other things, any accommodations the client requires to fulfill work requirements. 106. The WeCARE Program vendor is also required to accommodate clients’ needs in
rescheduling appointments. 107. The WeCARE Program vendor also provides reasonable modification to prepare
clients with mental and physical impairments for work. For example, WeCARE Program vendors’ job preparation and job search services are to include specialized activities for people with disabilities, such as “job coaching” and “job shadowing,” as well as a specific orientation on the legal rights of people with disabilities.
108. The practices required of WeCARE Program vendors are not offered by HRA staff at the agency’s own Job Centers, nor were they offered at the hub centers.
109. These accommodations can be provided at the local Job Centers. 110. There is a generic ADA policy directive that applies to all Job Centers but it does not address many of the needs, or include references to many of the reasonable accommodations, that are described in HRA’s guidelines applicable to WeCARE Program vendors. Disabled Individuals Were Burdened and Harmed by the HRA’s New Segregated System 111. HRA’s hub centers created substantial additional burdens for individuals with physical and mental impairments who had been assigned there, without any corresponding justification or benefit. 112. First, they were at greater risk of having their cases closed due to missing a required appointment, such as an eligibility recertification, because of a travel hardship. A recipient who fails to report to a mandatory appointment has her public assistance and Food
27

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 28 of 59
Stamps cases closed. Thus, disabled individuals who had difficulty attending appointments at hub centers were at risk of having their cases closed. As of March 22, 2005, 791 individuals whose cases had been transferred to hub centers had their cases closed for failing to report to appointments even before the WeCARE Program was fully operational.
113. Second, disabled individuals who have travel limitations experienced greater pain and discomfort traveling to a distant hub center than to their local Job Center.
114. Third, regardless of travel hardship, many disabled individuals incurred much greater time and inconvenience traveling to remote hub centers. Some also incurred additional travel costs that they cannot afford.
115. Fourth, regardless of travel hardship, disabled individuals who require emergency benefits, such as an emergency rent arrears grant to prevent eviction or a utility arrears grant to prevent a utility shut-off, had greater difficulty obtaining those emergency benefits, and therefore were at greater risk of eviction and/or utility shut-off. This risk was particularly acute for class members who experienced travel hardships because of their disabilities.
116. Fifth, regardless of travel hardship, HRA’s segregated hub system harmed disabled individuals as a class by stigmatizing them and relegating them to second-class status.
FACTS CONCERNING THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS Lovely H.
117. Lovely H. is 45 years old and lives in Arverne in the Far Rockaway area of Queens, with her mother.
118. Lovely H. suffers from anxiety, with a specific phobia that makes it very difficult
28

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 29 of 59
for her to talk and interact with other people. Her condition also leads her to be extremely worried about her own safety and that of her mother when she is away from home. She tries to avoid interacting with others as much as possible because it causes her so much anxiety.
119. She also has Major Depressive Disorder. Her symptoms include: depressed mood, loss of interest, difficulty concentrating, loss of confidence, and lack of energy. At least twice a week, she experiences severely debilitating symptoms that make it extremely difficult for her to get out of bed. Ms. H. also suffers from sleep apnea. During periods of depression, her sleep apnea is uncontrolled, and she is only able to sleep three or four hours per night.
120. In addition to these problems, Lovely H. also suffers from arthritis, back pain, and obesity, which make it difficult and painful for her to walk and to climb stairs.
121. These conditions substantially limit Lovely H.’s ability to walk, climb stairs, sleep, interact with other people, maintain a regular schedule, and work. As a result of Lovely H.’s severe anxiety, she becomes extremely anxious when she leaves her home. Her problems climbing up and down stairs make it particularly difficult to use the subway system.
122. Lovely H. receives individual and group therapy once a week at a local mental health clinic, and sees a psychiatrist at the clinic monthly. She is also treated with medication and an oxygen CPAP machine for her apnea, and uses a cane to assist her when she walks.
123. HRA has evaluated Lovely H.’s functional impairments on several occasions and has concluded that she likely meets the federal Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits criteria to be considered disabled due to her psychiatric condition, and should be exempt from work requirements as a result of her disability.
29

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 30 of 59
124. Lovely H.’s only source of support is public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid. Prior to January 2005, she received her benefits through her local center in Rockaway, Job Center 79, located just three blocks from her home.
125. Sometime in early January 2005, she received a notice transferring her to the segregated hub center in Manhattan – ninety minutes away from her home. The notice did not inform her that she had any choice in the matter or that she could request a State administrative fair hearing if she did not think she should be transferred.
126. In April 2005, Lovely H. needed help from her new hub center. She rents a room from her mother, but her rent checks were being sent by HRA to a Wyoming address with a Puerto Rico zip code. She needed this problem fixed and also needed a copy of her public assistance budget to give to the landlord. She called her worker at the hub center and asked if he could correct her landlord’s address and mail her the budget printout because it was so difficult for her to travel. The worker denied her request for a reasonable modification. He refused to mail her the printout and told her that if she wanted it, she would have to travel in person to the center. He also told her that she needed to bring in proof of her address to correct her shelter payments.
127. Lovely H. traveled to the segregated center in Manhattan on April 4, 2005. Because she was too afraid to travel alone, her seventy-year old mother, who also uses a cane and has trouble walking, traveled with her. To get to hub center 39 at Union Square, Lovely H. and her mother had to navigate two different subway lines and climb several stairways at each station.
30

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 31 of 59
128. By the time Lovely H. arrived at hub center 39 ninety minutes later, she was in pain and was experiencing a great deal of anxiety due to the crowds she faced on public transportation during her journey.
129. Lovely H. received no special accommodations at the segregated hub center in Manhattan. She was forced to wait for over one hour in a crowded waiting room without being helped. She told the worker at the desk that she could not be around crowds due to her medical condition, and asked if she could leave the papers she needed to give her worker, but she was told that she could not. She finally left before being seen because she was so uncomfortable in the waiting room. Lovely H.’s attorney intervened with hub center 39 and helped her correct the address for her rent checks.
130. Lovely H. wanted to continue to receive her benefits from her local welfare center and was afraid that she would not be able to handle the stress or pain caused by ninety minute trips on public transportation to the hub center in Manhattan.
131. Due to Lovely H.’s medical conditions, she also requires appropriate reasonable modifications so that she may have equal access to benefits and services. Lovely H. would like to communicate with her center by mail, fax, or telephone to provide information and documentation whenever possible, as it is very difficult for her to leave her home. At times when it is necessary for her to appear at a Job Center in person, she requires flexibility in her appointments to make it easier for her to comply, and she requires limited wait times because she experiences anxiety waiting at the center.
31

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 32 of 59
Gloria Q. 132. Gloria Q. is a 50 year old disabled recipient of cash assistance, Food Stamps and
Medicaid who suffers from Major Depressive Disorder and back pain due to degenerative joint disease.
133. She lives alone in Queens and is substantially limited in her ability to walk, interact with others, travel by public transportation, sleep, eat and work.
134. The symptoms of her depression include lack of energy, depressed mood, lack of interest, anxiety, lack of concentration, and decreased appetite. Her depression also makes it hard for her to sleep. She is often tired, and she cries frequently. There are days where it is very hard for her to motivate herself to leave her house, especially in the mornings.
135. Gloria Q. receives psychiatric treatment and has been prescribed medication for her physical and psychiatric condition. HRA has evaluated Gloria Q.’s limitations and concluded that she has difficulty standing and walking for long periods of time and could only manage “limited travel” and not during rush hour. Her mental condition also affects her ability to travel. Her anxiety causes taking the train to be very stressful, especially when it is crowded and people are rushing and pushing. When she feels anxious, she often has trouble breathing and feels pressure in her chest. Due to her degenerative joint disease, she suffers pain from extended periods of sitting, standing or walking. HRA also concluded that she would need guidance and understanding in responding to co-workers and supervisors if she were assigned to an employment activity.
136. Until January 2005, Gloria Q. received her public benefits through her local Job
32

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 33 of 59
Center in Queens – 15 minutes away from her home. In January 2005, Gloria Q. received a form notice transferring her case away from her local center to a hub center in Manhattan – a distance that would take her at least one hour to travel. The notice did not offer her any alternatives or help if she had difficulty getting to the new center.
137. Gloria Q. was fearful that if her case were transferred to Manhattan she would have greater difficulty attending appointments and that her case would be closed if she missed an appointment. She wanted to continue to receive her benefits through her local center rather than traveling an hour into Manhattan, so her attorney requested that she be allowed to remain there. HRA did not respond to this request.
138. HRA attempted to close Gloria Q.’s public assistance case twice in 2005 for failure to attend various mandatory public assistance appointments in Manhattan. On one occasion, she arrived late to an appointment at HS Systems. On another occasion, she was unable to attend an appointment at the hub center 39 in Manhattan. In both instances, HRA refused to reschedule these appointments as a reasonable accommodation to her disability. Gloria Q. was forced to retain an attorney and request a fair hearing to avoid loss of her public assistance benefits.
139. In April 2005, Gloria Q. tried to apply for an emergency rent arrears grant at her local welfare center to prevent her eviction. Instead of helping her with the emergency, the local center told her that she had to apply at hub center 39 in Manhattan for help because her case had been transferred. Gloria Q. was forced to travel to Manhattan to apply for the emergency grant, even though her local center was authorized to accept the emergency grant application.
33

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 34 of 59
140. Due to Gloria Q.’s medical condition, she requires reasonable modifications so that she may have equal access to benefits and services. Gloria Q. would like to communicate with her welfare center by mail, fax, or telephone to provide information and documentation whenever possible, as it is very difficult for her to leave her home. At times when it is necessary for her to appear in person, she requires flexibility in her appointments to make it easier for her to comply, and case management services to assist her with tasks such as explaining notices, rescheduling appointments as necessary, and helping with emergency issues such as a utility shut-off notice.
141. After this action was initiated, Gloria Q.’s case was transferred from Center 39 in Union Square back to her neighborhood center, Center 53 in Queens.
142. Ms. Q. was called in for an appointment in May 2006 that was supposed to be cancelled by HRA. Instead, she became entangled by HRA’s auto-posting system: the appointment triggered a series of automatic computer actions which generated four computer notices – each one leading to the next step towards a case closing – without a worker able to intervene and fix the problem.
143. A fair hearing on Ms. Q.’s employability was pending at the time of the May appointment, and because she had “aid to continue,” no other employability appointments should have been scheduled pending a decision on her fair hearing.
144. Ms. Q.’s lawyer called Ms. Junior at Center 53 and explained that Ms. Q. has difficulty traveling during rush hour and explained that Ms. Q. was waiting for a pending fair hearing decision. Ms. Junior of Center 53 agreed to make a note on the computer about these
34

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 35 of 59
things and cancel the appointment. 145. Nevertheless, HRA initiated an adverse case action against Ms. Q. despite Ms.
Junior’s note. As a result of the adverse case action being initiated, Ms. Q. was sent a notice for a conciliation appointment directing her to come in on May 31, 2006. The appointment notice specified that Ms. Q. had missed an appointment on May 16, 2006, not May 15. Ms. Q. was confused about why she would be called in to explain her absence, when she knew her lawyer had called to explain it to the worker at Center 53 and the worker agreed to cancel it.
146. When counsel called the Center back, Ms. Jones, the Administrative Assistant to the Director of Center 53 acknowledged the note left by Ms. Junior. Ms. Jones assured Ms. Q.’s lawyer that the case would not close, and that Ms. Q. could ignore the conciliation notice.
147. Seemingly helpless to stop the auto-posting process, despite the worker’s promise, Ms. Q. received a notice of intent to close her case on June 14, 2006 for failure to go to a work activity appointment activity at Center 53 on May 16. Ms. Q. requested a fair hearing and therefore received “aid continuing” on this notice, which prevented her case from closing.
148. Ms. Q. was called into Center 53 regarding the same missed appointment for a mandatory dispute resolution appointment on June 19, 2006, to discuss possible resolution of her fair hearing.
149. At that point, Ms. Q.’s counsel again spoke with Ms. Junior to try to resolve the issue over the phone or to change the appointment date, because Ms. Q. had a conflicting medical appointment on June 19. Ms. Junior stated that at that point the only way to resolve the problem was for Ms. Q. to go to a fair hearing. She stated that “employability” appointments, like Ms.
35

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 36 of 59
Q.’s May 15 appointment, could not be fixed by Center 53 staff. She wanted to help, but she explained that she did not have access to the right computer codes needed to fix the problem. Michele N.
150. Michele N. is 44 years old and lives in Howard Beach with her sister. For the past six years she has been suffering from major depressive disorder and anxiety. Until 2000, Michele N. worked for about twenty years as a shipping clerk, at times working two jobs, sometimes seven days per week.
151. In September 2000, Michele N. began suffering from severe depression and anxiety, in part because her mother was very ill. She was frequently so upset at work that she experienced crying spells on the job. Unable to continue working, she began receiving disability benefits from her employer due to her health problems. Michele N. attempted to work several times over the next few years but was unable to hold a job for long.
152. Michele N. has difficulty sleeping at night, and often cannot fall asleep until four or five o’clock in the morning. She also has frequent, severe headaches.
153. Michele N. is treated at a local mental health clinic where she has weekly sessions with a therapist. She sees a psychiatrist once a month for psychotherapy and medication. She is substantially limited in her ability to work and to interact with others, concentrate, take care of her personal hygiene, sleep, and travel on public transportation.
154. By 2004 Michele N.’s depression and anxiety had worsened so that she would hardly ever leave the house alone, and she had to apply for public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. HRA has evaluated Michele N.’s functional impairments and has concluded that she
36

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 37 of 59
is impaired in her ability to work. She is awaiting a determination on her application for SSI benefits.
155. Up until April 2005, Michele N.’s welfare center was in Jamaica, Queens, but later that month she received a notice stating that she was transferred to hub center 39, the hub center in Union Square, Manhattan.
156. Michele N. was very concerned about having her public assistance, Food Stamp, and Medicaid case handled in Manhattan. It would have been difficult for her to travel alone on public transportation, because she often experiences the symptoms of panic attacks – rapid heart beats and shortness of breath – when she feels she is not in control of her environment, especially in close places with strangers, like subway cars.
157. Also, because of her problems sleeping, it is extremely difficult for her to make early morning appointments. Once, when she was assigned an early appointment for HS Systems she asked if they could please make it later in the day but was told that was not possible.
158. Michele N. was very upset about having to travel to Manhattan because of the subway and of rush-hour travel. Her sister was recovering from surgery and was unable to travel with her to her welfare center. It was difficult enough for Michele N. to travel to her old center in Queens. She was very concerned that she would not be able to manage to travel to hub center 39 in Manhattan, and that she may lose her benefits if she missed an appointment. Michele N. requires help accessing her benefits – in particular, help making appointments at convenient times and places or the ability to do things by phone or fax. HRA had denied her attorney’s request that her case be transferred back to the Queens welfare center.
37

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 38 of 59
Courtney B. 159. Courtney B. lives in public housing in Brooklyn, and has been receiving public
assistance for more than ten years. Her Job Center is the Euclid Job Center 78. 160. Ms. B. has serious cognitive deficits which severely compromise her ability to
accurately recall her own history. Ms. B. has also been diagnosed with schizophrenia. It is hard for her to concentrate and think clearly. In addition, Ms. B. is legally blind as a result of congenital myopic degeneration. She cannot see anything with her left eye and has limited vision in her right eye.
161. Ms. B.’s disabilities impair her such that she cannot meet the demands that HRA places upon her without appropriate accommodations or modifications of the agency’s practices. For instance, Ms. B. cannot, at times, read notices clearly enough to know what they say due to her vision deficits. She cannot assimilate information she receives – either verbally or in writing – well enough to understand what HRA requires of her, due to her psychiatric and cognitive impairments. For the same reasons she cannot recall events in her past or critical information in order to provide it to HRA as HRA demands.
162. Ms. B. is eligible for public assistance, food stamps and Medicaid based on her lack of income and resources. Based on her medical condition, she is eligible for HRA’s WeCARE program.
163. Ms. B. has been evaluated by HRA’s contract medical providers. 164. Ms. B. has supplied medical documentation of her disabilities and impairments through her attorney and also through her case workers at the Jewish Guild for the Blind.
38

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 39 of 59
165. HRA has a computer program known as the “WeCARE” Viewer system which is supposed to allow HRA staff access to information on clients’ medical histories and related information when necessary.
166. On or about May 17, 2006, HRA responded to a request from Ms. B.’s attorney who was representing her at a fair hearing. HRA reported that no WeCARE records were found; neither the results of her recent and past medical examinations, nor the medical information supplied to HRA by her advocates.
167. If she were provided reasonable accommodations, Courtney B. would be able to maintain the public assistance benefits for which she is eligible.
168. Over the past seven months, Courtney B., through her attorney, has requested reasonable accommodations from supervisory staff at her local center as well as through HRA’s designated ADA compliance officer on at least four occasions.
169. The accommodations Courtney B. has requested have been designed to address her problems with understanding notices, keeping appointments, and obtaining requested documentation. She has asked for accommodations such as having appointments conducted in her home; having someone appointed by HRA to assist her; and being exempted from certain documentation requirements when she is unable to meet them.
170. During the time she has been requesting these accommodations, Courtney B. has been subject to at least four (4) case closings or attempts at case closings by HRA for missing an appointment or failing to provide information or documents requested by HRA.
171. In each of the situations involving a possible case closing, Courtney B. had either
39

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 40 of 59
misunderstood notices or procedures; was unable to comply due to her disabilities; had good cause for whatever she had not done; or had actually fulfilled her obligations but had been caught up in HRA’s auto-posting system, which is set up to sanction people by default.
172. Most recently, Courtney B. was drawn into HRA’s case closing machinery last week when, in a notice dated July 22, 2006, HRA notified her that she had missed an appointment on July 19, 2006.
173. Prior to this appointment having been set, however, Courtney B.’s attorney had submitted written requests to HRA’s ADA Compliance Officer, Lauren Friedland, on June 11, 2006 and July 13, 2006, again asking for accommodations to address the problems Courtney B. was having with making appointments and providing information and documentation that HRA was requesting.
174. Courtney B. was under the misapprehension that she did not have to go into the office for this appointment on July 19, 2006.
175. Ms. Friedland responded to the requests for reasonable accommodations on July 20, 2006 – the day after the appointment which Courtney B. had missed – and took no steps to make sure that Courtney B. did not lose her benefits for having missed that appointment.
176. Rather than providing the requested accommodations, Ms. Friedland suggested that it was up to Ms B.’s attorney to see that Courtney B. kept her appointments or provided HRA the name of someone who would. While she stated she was making a referral to HRA’s Adult Protective Services, and to WeCARE, Ms. Friedland took no steps to ensure that Courtney B. was provided with reasonable accommodations during that referral process.
40

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 41 of 59
177. Because HRA has failed to provide Courtney B. reasonable accommodations and address these problems, Courtney B. has been, and remains, at risk of losing her essential benefits.
178. Courtney B. lives in subsidized public housing and her rent is paid directly by HRA. The loss of her public assistance benefits, in turn, has placed Courtney B. in jeopardy of losing her housing and becoming homeless. During the past year the New York City Housing Authority sued her on two occasions for non-payment of rent. And just last week, NYCHA threatened to initiate another proceeding to evict her for non-payment.
179. Upon information and belief, the lack of a functioning system that would enable HRA staff and contract workers to access medical and impairment-related information has contributed to the agency’s failure to provide Courtney B. with reasonable accommodations in a timely manner.
180. HRA’s failure to provide Courtney B. with reasonable accommodations in a timely manner, the constant problems she has had with keeping her case open, and the related threat of eviction, are making her anxious and depressed. Laura S.
181. Laura S. and her sixteen-year-old son are homeless and live in a shelter on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. They receive public assistance, food stamps and Medicaid through the Riverview Job Center located in East Harlem. That center is primarily for people in the shelter system. Prior to becoming homeless in October 2005, Ms. S. was assigned to Center 39, the hub center in Union Square.
41

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 42 of 59
182. Ms. S. suffers from severe depression, for which she takes medication and sees a therapist and psychiatrist. She has been exempt from work activities by HRA because of her mental disability.
183. Ms. S. lost her job after September 11, 2001, and her depression became progressively more severe. Eventually, her depression became so bad that she was evicted from her apartment. Her public assistance case had closed in July 2005, but due to the severity of her depression, she could not manage to leave her apartment to go to Center 39 to deal with it. She had tried calling the Center 39 on the phone, but she could not get anyone to help her on the phone. Nobody would call her back. In October 2005, she was evicted.
184. Since becoming homeless and being transferred to the Riverview Center, Ms. S. has continued to have difficulties getting to the center due to her depression. It is far from her shelter on the Lower East Side, and she cannot take the subway because of the stress it causes her. The crowds on the subway also make her nervous. Instead, she takes the bus to Riverview, which takes at least 45 minutes, and often longer. When the bus is crowded, she gets off and waits until a less crowed bus comes by.
185. Once Ms. S.’s case was reopened at the Riverview Center, she encountered more problems. In February 2006, she had to go to Riverview to resolve a threatened case closing due to an allegedly missed EVR visit at her shelter. (She was there, but they never showed up.)
186. She had to wait all day at the Riverview Center. The waiting room was very crowded, and she had to wait in a long line just to ask a question. She felt she was treated in a dehumanizing way by the staff there. After she was there for at least four hours, she advised the
42

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 43 of 59
receptionist that she suffers from depression and could not stay there much longer. The stress of being around crowds affects her ability to breathe. She feels like her throat closes up and she hyperventilates and trembles. The receptionist told her that she had to wait, and that there was nothing she could do about it. She was the last person to be seen, and by then she had not eaten all day. She had missed lunch at the shelter. The staff admitted that they had forgotten about her. The worker she saw that day did her EVR appointment for her, and she thought the case closing was resolved.
187. The experience of waiting in the Riverview Center all day had a negative effect on Ms. S.’s mental state. She was a wreck by the end of the day. The next day, her depression was so bad she did not leave her room at the shelter.
188. Despite her efforts, the agency went ahead and closed her case. She tried calling Riverview; she had no cash or Food Stamps. She called about ten different people at the center, and people just kept telling her to call a different person.
189. She felt she had to travel to Riverview again to fix the problem, though it took her days to get up the strength to go there. When she went back, she again had to wait all day. Finally, she was advised to call for a fair hearing. She spoke to the fair hearing unit at the center, who sent her back downstairs to EVR to fix the problem. The EVR people advised her that the case would be turned back on. In fact, Laura S.’s benefits were not be turned back on for months.
190. Ms. S. would like to be transferred to a Job Center closer to her home because of the travel hardship she experiences getting there. Her requests to be transferred have been
43

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 44 of 59
denied. She would also like to limit waiting time as much as possible due to her psychiatric condition. Eula S.
191. Eula S. is a forty-five year old cash assistance and Medicaid recipient who is assigned to Center 45 in the Bronx.
192. For the past several years she has suffered from various medical conditions that prevent her from working, including back pain caused by degenerative disc problems, carpel tunnel syndrome in her left hand, migraine headaches accompanied by left side muscle numbness and sometimes slurred speech, arthritis in her knees, and high blood pressure. Ms. S. has a difficult time standing and sitting for long periods of time because of the pain these conditions cause her. Sometimes she has trouble sleeping because of pain.
193. HRA’s doctors have evaluated Ms. S., but she is exempt from work requirements because her mother who has a memory impairment needs Ms. S. to watch over her.
194. Once, when HRA evaluated Ms. S., they referred her to her own doctor because her blood tests came back irregular.
195. In February 2006, she was referred to HRA’s Disability Services Program, which helped her fill out an SSI application. Based on her medical condition, she is eligible for HRA’s WeCARE program.
196. Ms. S. was scheduled for an employability appointment on April 18, 2006 at Center 46. She had an appointment scheduled with her neurologist at Montefiore for that same day. Ms. S. called Center 46 to reschedule the appointment, but she was told to wait for a letter.
44

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 45 of 59
197. Ms. S. went to Center 45 after April 18, 2006 with two papers for her worker. One was a form filled out by her mother’s doctor, stating that she needs help at home, and the other was a letter from the arthritis clinic at Jacobi Medical Center stating that Ms. S. is not able to work. She told the receptionist she just wanted to drop off the papers, but she was told to wait for her worker. She waited several hours to talk to her worker. The worker ended up only taking the form about her mother; he refused to take both documents.
198. The problem was not solved. Ms. S. was sent a notice dated May 24, 2006 stating that she would be sanctioned for six months because she missed the April 18 appointment.
199. On June 5, Ms. S. went into the center to try to resolve the problem. She got there at approximately 9 a.m. and filled out a form stating that she had been sanctioned. She didn’t speak to anyone until about 4 p.m., when a worker came out and gave her a conference report stating that her sanction would be lifted due to agency error. She didn’t get any back benefits until July 17, 2006, almost a month and a half later. She thinks there is still some money the agency owes her due to the sanction.
200. Ms. S. tries to communicate with her worker about problems like this by phone, but he never picks it up. The few times she has left a message, nobody calls her back. She cannot schedule an appointment at the center. Even when she has an appointment at the center, she often ends up waiting several hours to see someone.
201. Waiting in the Job Center for even a few hours causes Ms. S. pain and distress. 202. Nobody at Center 45 ever told Ms. S. she could get a reasonable accommodation to reschedule appointments when she has conflicting medical appointments, avoid waiting so
45

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 46 of 59
long at the Job Center, and to help her keep her public assistance case open. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (On Behalf of Subclass)
VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT A. Discrimination Claims 203. HRA is a “public entity” within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1), and U.S. Department of Justice implementing regulations, at 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 204. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass have at least one “disability,” as that term is used in the ADA. The ADA defines “disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; having a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such impairment, as defined under the ADA at 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 205. Each plaintiff and member of the plaintiff subclass is a “qualified individual with a disability” as defined under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, because each person is an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by HRA. 206. Defendant discriminated and continues to discriminate against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and its implementing
46

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 47 of 59
regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, in the following ways: (A) Defendant discriminated and continues to discriminate against plaintiffs
and members of the plaintiff subclass by having failed to administer services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d) by having forced plaintiffs to access their benefits and services related to public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid in separate “hub centers,” which were segregated settings that almost exclusively served persons with disabilities.
(B) Defendant discriminated against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by having denied plaintiffs the option to participate in services, programs and activities that were not separate or different in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(2) by forcing plaintiffs to receive services through the “hub” centers.
(C) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to provide reasonable modifications necessary for subclass members to apply for, successfully obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(7).
(D) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to (i) afford subclass members such benefits in a manner that is equal to others; and (ii) provide subclass members with benefits in a manner that is as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, gain the same benefit and reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others, in violation of 35.130(b)(1)(ii)&(iii).
(E) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff
47

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 48 of 59
subclass by intentionally treating subclass members differently from non-disabled public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid recipients in violation of 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(a) & 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(ii) & (vii).
(F) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by using methods of administration that subject subclass members to discrimination in violation of 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(3)(i)-(ii) & 35.130(b)(8).
207. With respect to each kind of discrimination, paragraphs (A)-(E), defendant discriminated or continues to discriminate against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass because of their disabilities.
B. Notice Claim 208. Notices sent to plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass indicating that their cases have been transferred to one of three “hub centers” violated the ADA by failing to inform them adequately that they may be protected from such an action by the ADA and of the manner in which they may seek an exemption under the ADA, and by providing misleading information on the right to request reasonable modifications, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.106.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (On Behalf of Subclass)
VIOLATIONS OF THE REHABILITATION ACT A. Discrimination Claims 209. HRA is a “recipient” of “federal financial assistance,” as defined by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and by implementing regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S.
48

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 49 of 59
Department of Agriculture, thereby rendering HRA subject to Section 504. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 41.3(d)-(e); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(f)-(h); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.3(f)-(g).
210. The administration by HRA of the public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid programs, which are funded in part with federal financial assistance, constitute “programs or activities” subject to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(1).
211. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass have at least one “disability,” as that term is used in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Like the ADA, Section 504 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities. 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B) & (20)(B).
212. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass is a “handicapped person,” as that term is regulations implementing Section 504. Section 504 regulations define a handicap as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual. 28 C.F.R. § 41.31(a); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j), (l); 7 C.F. R. § 15b.3(I).
213. Each plaintiff and each member of the plaintiff subclass meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services and is therefore a “qualified handicapped person,” as that term is defined in regulations implementing Section 504. 28 C.F.R. § 41.32; 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(l); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.3(n)(4).
214. Defendant discriminated and continues to discriminate against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and its implementing
49

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 50 of 59
regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 41.51; 45 C.F.R. § 84.4, 7 C.F.R. § 15b.4, in the following ways: (A) Defendant discriminated against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff
subclass by having failed to administer services, programs and activities in the in the most integrated setting, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d); 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(3); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.4(b)(iii), by having forced plaintiffs to access their benefits and services related to public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid in separate “hub centers,” which were segregated settings that almost exclusively served persons with disabilities.
(B) Defendant discriminated against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by having denied subclass members the option to participate in services, programs and activities were not separate or different, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(3); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.4(b)(3), by having forced subclass members to receive services through the “hub centers.”
(C) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to provide reasonable modifications necessary for subclass members to apply for, successfully obtain, and maintain eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
(D) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass by failing to (i) afford subclass members such benefits in a manner that is equal to others; and (ii) provide subclass members with benefits in a manner that is as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, gain the same benefit and reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(1)(ii)-(iii);
50

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 51 of 59
45 C.F.R. §§ 84.4(b)(2) & 84.4(b)(1)(ii)-(iii); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.4(b)(1)(ii)-(iii). (E) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff
subclass by intentionally treating subclass members differently from non-disabled public assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid recipients, in violation of 28 C.F.R. §§ 41.51(a) & 41.51(b)(1)(i)- (ii), (vii); 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.4(a) & 84.4(b)(1)(I)-(ii), (vii); 7 C.F.R. §§ 15b.4(a) & 15b.4(b)(1)(i)-(ii), (vii).
(F) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs and plaintiff members of the subclass by using methods of administration that subjected subclass members to discrimination, in violation of 28 CF.R. §§ 41.51(b)(3)(i)-(ii); 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(4)(i)-(ii); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.4(b)(4)(i)-(ii).
215. With respect to each kind of discrimination, paragraphs (A)-(F), defendant discriminated or continues to discriminates against plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff subclass because of their disabilities.
B. Notice Claim 216. Notices sent to plaintiffs and plaintiff members of the subclass indicating that their cases have been transferred to one of three “hub centers” violated the section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to inform them adequately that they may be protected from such an action by the Rehabilitation Act and the manner in which they might seek an exemption under the Rehabilitation Act, and by providing misleading information on the right to request reasonable modifications, in violation of 28 C.F.R. 39.111; 45 C.F.R. § 84.8(a); 7 C.F.R. § 15b.7(a).
51

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 52 of 59
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION – DUE PROCESS
217. At all times relevant herein, defendant was acting under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, custom, or usage of the State of New York.
218. Defendant violated and continues to violate the rights of all class members guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in at least two ways:
(A) by misleading class members as to the their rights to seek a reasonable modification in response to the agency’s decision to transfer them to the “hub centers” by advising plaintiffs that they could only seek information about such reasonable modifications should traveling to the “hub” center be “impossible” for them;
(B) by failing or refusing to ensure that HRA staff provide class members of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the decision to transfer them to “hub” centers; and
(C) by subjecting class members to an automated decision making process that systemically initiates adverse actions without consideration of legally required factors, specifically those concerning whether the client had good cause for failing to comply with a requirement due to a disability.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION – DUE PROCESS
219. Defendant violated and continues to violate the rights of all class members
52

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 53 of 59
guaranteed by Article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution, in at least two ways: (A) by having mislead class members as to the their rights to seek a reasonable
modification in response to the agency’s decision to transfer them to the “hub centers” and by having advising plaintiffs that they could only seek information about such reasonable modifications should traveling to the “hub” center have been “impossible” for them;
(B) by having failed or having refused to ensure that HRA staff provided class members of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the decision to transfer them to “hub” centers; and
(C) by subjecting class members to an automated decision making process that systemically initiates adverse actions without consideration of legally required factors, specifically those concerning whether the client had good cause for failing to comply with a requirement due to a disability.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF § 296-2(a) OF THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 220. HRA job centers are places of public accommodation. N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). 221. Plaintiffs and all class members are persons with a disability within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(21). 222. Defendant subjected and continues to subject plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members to discrimination in their civil rights on the basis of their disability by having segregated them in “hub” centers, prohibiting their continued access to local centers; adopting
53

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 54 of 59
policies, procedures and methods of administration that have a disparate impact on disabled persons and treating them differently than non-disabled persons, in violation of the State Human Rights Law. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296-2(a).
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW § 40-c 223. At or before the commencement of this action, notice thereof had been served upon the attorney general of the State of New York. 224. Plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members are persons with a disability within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(21). 225. Defendant subjected and continues to subject plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members to discrimination in their civil rights on the basis of their disability by having segregated them in hub centers, prohibiting their continued access to local centers, adopting policies, procedures and methods of administration that have a disparate impact on disabled persons, and treating them differently than non-disabled persons, in violation of New York State Civil Rights Law. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW 226. Plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members are disabled within the meaning of N.Y. Soc. Serv. L. § 331(3). 227. The defendant discriminated against plaintiffs on the basis of handicap in violation of N.Y. Soc. Serv. L. § 331(3) by having assigned them to separate facilities for
54

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 55 of 59
programs offered by the New York City social services district under Title 9B of the Social Services Law.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 228. Defendant discriminated and continues to discriminate against plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members in violation of 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1 including but not limited to the following ways:
(A) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by denying plaintiffs an aid, care, service or other benefit and privilege on the basis of handicap in violation of 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1(b)(1).
(B) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by providing an aid, care, service or other benefit and privilege to plaintiffs on the basis of their handicaps that are different and provided in a different manner from that provided to others who are not handicapped. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1(b)(2).
(C) Defendant discriminated against plaintiffs by subjecting plaintiffs to segregation and separate treatment in matters related to their receipt of aid, care, services, other benefits or privileges on the basis of their handicaps. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1(b)(3).
(D) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by restricting them in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any 55

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 56 of 59
aid, care, services, other benefits or privileges on the basis of their handicaps. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1(b)(4). (E) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by denying them the opportunity to participate in a program through the provision of services or otherwise or afford them an opportunity to do so which is different from that afforded others under the program. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1(b)(6). (F) Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs by making a distinction on the basis of handicap in relation to use of physical facilities and intake and application procedures. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1(b)(7).
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 229. Defendant is a “person” subject to N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a). 230. Plaintiffs and all plaintiff class members have a disability within the meaning of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(16). 231. Defendant discriminates against plaintiffs in violation of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) by refusing, withholding from or denying plaintiffs accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges because of their disabilities.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court grant them the following relief: 232. Certify a plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(2). 233. Adjudge and declare that the policies, practices, omissions and conditions
56

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 57 of 59
described above are in violation of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class and subclass they seek to represent under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Due Process Clause of the United States and New York State Constitutions, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York State Social Services Law and its implementing regulations and the New York City Civil Rights Law.
234. Permanently enjoin defendant, her agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them:
(a) from operating “hub” centers in a manner that serves class members in a segregated setting; and
(b) to offer class members the option to remain at their local job center, or to transfer back to their local job center if their case has already been transferred to a hub center.
235. Order defendant to refrain from employing methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating against class members based on their disabilities.
236. Order defendant to reopen all the public assistance, Food Stamps, and/or Medicaid cases of all transferred class members that were closed following the transfer, reverse all other adverse actions taken against transferred class members following the transfer, and restore all lost benefits.
237. Order defendant, her agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them, to make reasonable accommodations available to class members in a manner that allows them to comply with the conditions of eligibility for public assistance, Food Stamps and Medicaid at their local welfare centers.
57

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 58 of 59
238. Award plaintiffs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(b), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 42 U.S.C.
§ 12205, the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
239. Retain jurisdiction of this case until the defendant has fully complied with the
orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that the defendant will continue to
comply in the future; and
240. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York December 11, 2006
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Steve Banks Attorney-in-Charge Adriene Holder, Esq. Attorney-in-Charge, Civil Practice Area Scott Rosenberg, Director of Litigation Kenneth R. Stephens, of counsel Susan E. Welber, of counsel Cheryl N. Williams, of counsel 199 Water Street, 3d Floor New York, New York 10038 Telephone (212) 577-3300 Facsimile (212) 509-8753
By: ___________________________________ Kathleen Kelleher, (KK-0598)
-and-
MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP By: Scott A. Edelman (SE 5247)
Kevin M. Ashby (KA 8905) Carolyn Wu
58

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 97 Filed 12/11/06 Page 59 of 59 One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
59

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 192 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------X

USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DATE FILE

LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., AND MICHELE N., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

05 Civ. 6920 (KBF)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

-v-

VERNA EGGLESTON, as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,

Defendant.
------------------------------------x

KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

In 2004, the New York City Human Resources Administration

("HRA") implemented changes in how it administered public

assistance, food stamps and Medicaid benefits to welfare

recipients with disabilities. Specifically, the HRA program

moved physical reporting locations to three "hub" centers in New

York City for individuals who suffered from certain medical or

mental disabilities. Previously, those individuals had been

able to report to 29 neighborhood offices. This lawsuit

followed in August 2005.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act ("the ADA"), Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1974 ("the Rehabilitation Act"), the Due

Process Clauses of both the U.S. and New York State

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 192 Filed 09/19/12 Page 2 of 6
Constitutions, and various New York State and City civil rights statutes and regulations.
On April 19 t 2006 t Judge Swain t to whom this case was originally assigned, ordered preliminary injunctive relief and certified a plaintiff class. On May 3, 2006 t HRA informed the Court of its intention to close the hub centers. The last such center was closed in July 2006. However t between the time that the hub centers had been opened and their closing, a large number of cases were closed or suffered a reduction in benefits (referred to as "sanctions-).
The parties then conducted extensive discovery to identify those class members who had had appointments at hub centers t failed to appear for those appointments and whose cases were closed or suffered sanctions as a result. The parties attempted to negotiate a settlement of monetary claims. In November 2006 t the parties entered into a stipulation in which they agreed that those individuals with currently opened cases would receive monetary payments according to a formula. That stipulation did not contain any concession of liability.
The parties disputed then--and continue to dispute now-­ whether those class members whose cases were closed and have not been reopened, are eligible for what the parties have characterized as "retroactive- cash payments. SpecificallYt the parties dispute whether New York Social Services Law § 106-b

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 192 Filed 09/19/12 Page 3 of 6
prevents monetary payment to an individual whose case is closed. This dispute is premised upon the assumption that such monetary payments can and must be characterized only as "corrective" or "retroactive" benefits payments, rather than compensatory damages for violation of plaintiffs' rights under various statutes.
In January 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to HRA's liability for the remaining class members who had lost benefits as a result of having their cases transferred to hub centers and whose cases were subsequently closed. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, in March
2009, Judge Swain sua sponte terminated that motion without
prejudice. To date, the parties have been unable to resolve their
remaining differences regarding payments to class members whose cases remain closed.
In November 2011, this case was transferred to this Court. Despite the passage of years since the case was filed, a number of issues remained open. The Court set a schedule that allowed for resolution of those issues and a trial date in November 2012. Based upon the Court's discussion with the parties regarding its view of the motion, the parties requested an extension of the schedule in this action, which sets trial for February 2013.

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 192 Filed 09/19/12 Page 4 of 6
Plaintiffs have now moved for partial summary judgment on the question of whether New York Social Services Law § 106-b precludes payment to class members who would otherwise be entitled to compensation,. solely because they no longer have an open public assistance case. As discussed below, the Court finds that the motion is premature because seeks an adjudication on damages prior to a determination of liability.
It is axiomatic that summary judgment as to damages can only follow a determination that damages are in fact owed i.e., that the defendant is actually liable for damages). See Amerada Hess Corp. v. Yuma Shipping Corp., No. 82 Civ. 2136, 1985 WL 458, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1985) ("It is difficult to imagine how the Court could rule on damages . . . without first determining the liability issue ... "). In the absence of such a finding, any such determination could only amount to an inappropriate advisory opinion.
Here, while the parties have done an admirable job of attempting to resolve this matter without a trial, there is no admission before the Court of liability. Certainly settlement discussions are not ipso facto an admission of liability. Plaintiffs' motion is premised at the outset on an assumption of liability. When that premise was disputed by defendants in opposition to this motion, plaintiffs responded by pointing to what they characterize as a concession of liability in both a

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 192 Filed 09/19/12 Page 5 of 6
hearing before a magistrate on this matter that preceded a written stipulation resolving certain issues, and the stipulation itself. The Court has reviewed both the transcript to which plaintiffs have referred and the stipulation itself. Defendants have made no concession that could be construed as one of liability--either at the hearing or in the stipulation itself. Indeed, at oral argument on this motion, counsel for defendants specifically denied that they had in any way conceded liability as to any issue.
This Court cannot make a determination as to what damages may be due in advance of a determination that anything is due at all. Accordingly, a judicial determination of summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings would be inappropriate and putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. As discussed on the August 29, 2012, conference call with the parties, if the parties wish to stipulate as to liability for even one plaintiff, the Court will issue a ruling as to the question of damages.

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 192 Filed 09/19/12 Page 6 of 6

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 164.

SO ORDERED:
Dated: New York/ New York 
 September 19/ 2012 


Le:.- fl. ~
KATHERINE B. FORREST 
 United States District Judge 


 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., and MICHELE N., COURTNEY B., LAURA S., EULA S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
- against -
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant.

USDC SDNY

DOCU:'\IENT

ELECTRO:\'ICALLY FILED

DOC#:

.

DATE FILED:NOV 2 52014

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
05 CV 6920 (KBF)

WHEREAS Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a class action complaint on or about August 3, 2005, alleging, inter alia, that the transfer by the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") of the public assistance cases of individuals from their local Job Centers to one of three specialized centers ("WeCARE hubs" or "hubs") in connection with the implementation of the Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment ("WeCARE") program, violated state, federal and local law; and
WHEREAS Plaintiffs simultaneously moved for class certification and a preliminary injunction; and
WHEREAS, in a decision dated April 19, 2006, the Court certified a class consisting of "recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who have received or will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily transferring their case to one of three 'hub centers' in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program" and a subclass within the main class of members "who (a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
-I-

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 13
activities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (b) have a record of such an impairment, or (c) are regarded as having such an impai1ment," Lovely H. y. Eggleston, 235 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); and
WHEREAS, in the April 19, 2006, decision, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to the extent that Defendant was prohibited from reassigning class members' (and their associated persons') cases to the hub centers involuntarily and Defendant was ordered to offer WcCARE participants already reassigned to a hub center the option of conducting through their nearest neighborhood center all of the interactions available to non-disabled benefit recipients through those offices, id. at 262-63; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated May 3, 2006, HRA informed the Court that it intended to close the WeCARE hubs and transfer hub clients to the local center that served their zip code ofresidcncc, see letter from Martha Calhoun to Hon. Laura Taylor Swain, May 3, 2006; and
WHEREAS the last hub center was closed in July 2006; and WHEREAS the parties have conducted discovery on the issue of remedy and attempted to identify which class members may have missed hub center appointments and subsequently had their cases closed or sanctioned; and WHEREAS the parties disputed ce11ain issues of law, and submitted these to the Court for resolution in a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on January 30, 2007 (the "First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment"); and WHEREAS, by Order dated March 20, 2009, the Court terminated the First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice to either party seeking restoration upon w1itten request; and
-2-

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 13
WHEREAS, by stipulation so ordered by this Court on February 3, 2010, the
class definition was further amended to be: recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who (1) are or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program or (2) individuals who were part of a case that was designated as "homebound" by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code l 9HC; and WHEREAS, by stipulation so ordered by this Court on February I, 2011, the
class definition was further amended to be: Individuals who meet one of the following three criteria: (I) individuals who arc, were, or will be recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are, were, or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program; or (2) individuals who were recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who were part of a case that was designated as "homebound" by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code 19HC or (3) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of cash assistance and/or food stamps who have a physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law § 292(21) and who request to be designated as "homebound" by HRA; and WHEREAS the patties previously entered into a Stipulation submitted to the
Court dated March 15, 2012, resolving, subject to approval by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance ("OTDA"), issues related to Plaintiffs' claims for benefits lost in connection with the implementation of the W cCARE hubs for class members with active
cash assistance cases; and
-3 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 4 of 13
WHEREAS, by letter dated March 8, 2013, OTDA approved the formula for issuing retroactive Cash Assistance benefits to class members with open Cash Assistance cases , as reflected in the March 15, 2012 Stipulation; and
WHEREAS the March 15, 2012, Stipulation set forth a procedure to calculate the amount to which class members with open cases would be compensated in the fom1 of retroactive Cash Assistance benefits but specifically left as unresolved the issue of whether and how any compensation for such lost Cash Assistance benefits would be made to class members with closed cases; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted a Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. No. 164) concerning entitlement to retroactive Cash Assistance benefits for class members with closed cases; and
WHEREAS, in a Decision and Order dated September 19, 2012, the Court found that Plaintiffs' motion was premature because it sought an adjudication on damages prior to a determination of liability; and
WHEREAS the parties have conducted extensive, aims-length negotiations to resolve this closed case issue and desire now to enter into an agreement to also settle Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, without further proceedings and without any admission of fault or liability, as specified in this Stipulation and Order;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED AS FOLLOWS: DEFINITIONS 1. "Closed Case Determination Date" means a date to be determined by the Defendant between
fifteen (15) and forty-five (45) days prior to the "Open Case Payment Date," defined in paragraph 10, below, at which time Defendant will determine which class members are to be issued benefits as open cases and which are to be compensated as closed cases.
-4 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 5 of 13
2. "Closed Case" means a Class Member who does not have an active Cash Assistance case on the "Closed Case Determination Date."
3. "Public Assistance Benefits" and/or "Cash Assistance Benefits" mean Family Assistance benefits authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-7 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611 et seq., implemented in New York pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law§§ 349 et seq.; and/or Safety Net Assistance benefits provided pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 157 et seq.
4. "Food Stamps," "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits," and "SNAP Benefits" mean: benefits provided pursuant to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program authorized by 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § l320b-7, and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611 et seq. and implemented in New York by N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law§§ 95 and 147.
5. "Did Not Attend Hub Center Appointment For Recertification Group" means class members whose cases were closed under Welfare Management System ("WMS") codes GIO, V20 or N 17, because they did not attend an appointment for recertification at a WeCARE hub center.
6. "Did Not Attend Other Required Hub Center Appointment Group" means class members who were sent a notice scheduling them for an appointment at a W eCARE hub center for a reason other than recertification, specifically an appointment under one of the NYCWAY codes as set forth in Defendant's responses to Interrogatory #2 of Plaintiffs' Second Set oflnterrogatories, referencing pages A4987-88 and A0490-91 (attached as Appendix A), and whose cases were closed because they did not attend that appointment.
7. "EBT" means an Electronic Benefits Transfer Card that is issued to a recipient of Cash Assistance or SNAP benefits.
8. "M3G Group" means class members who were sent an M3G notice scheduling them for an appointment at a WeCARE Hub Center for a reason other than recertification and whose cases were closed and where it can be established that the case closed because the class member failed to attend that appointment.
9. "Conciliation Group" means class members whose cases were closed or sanctioned for a reason other than not attending an appointment at a WeCARE hub center and who were notified that their opportunity to conciliate the alleged infraction would take place at a WeCARE hub center and for whom less than two outreach attempts were made to contact the client.
10. "Open Case Payment Date" means the date to be set by Defendant, no later than sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, at which time Defendant will issue retroactive Cash Assistance to all class members with open Cash Assistance cases who are eligible for Tier I or Tier II relief.
11. "Associated Persons" means class members who were assigned to a WeCARE hub center because their cases were associated with those of persons assigned to WeCARE on the basis of medical or mental health conditions.
-5-

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 6 of 13
12. "Non-Enrolled Persons" means class members who were assigned to a WeCARE hub center because they were considered candidates for enrollment in WeCARE, but who after subsequent evaluation, were not enrolled in WcCARE.
13. "PRIDE Group" means class members who were assigned to the PRIDE program at 109 East 16th Street prior to their designation for participation in WeCARE.
14. "Fair Hearing Group" means class members in either the "Did Not Attend Hub Center Appointment For Recertification Group," the "Did Not Attend Other Required Hub Center Appointment Group," the "M3G Group" or the "Conciliation Group" who challenged the case closing or sanction at issue by way of a fair hearing.
15. "Relief Period" means November I, 2004 through January 31, 2007.
16. "Sanction Relief Period" means November 1, 2004 through January 31, 2007.
17. "Case Closing Relief Period" means November 1, 2004 through July 31, 2006.
18. "Negative Case Actions" means sanctions and case closings imposed against class members who fall within the categories defined in sub-paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 11, and 13, above, during the relevant relief period and while the class member was assigned to a WcCARE Hub or required to attend appointments at a WeCARE Hub.
19. "Tier I Relief' means payment of Cash Assistance benefits issued to redress the loss of such Cash Assistance benefits because of a Negative Case Action, which shall be calculated as follows;
a. For sanctions: Tier I Relief will equal (i) the amount of the pro rata reduction imposed due to a sanction based on the maximum grant for the household size as set forth in Appendix B, multiplied by (ii) the period for which the sanction was imposed on the class member during the sanction relief period.
b. For case closings: Tier I Relief will equal (i) the maximum grant for the household size at the time of the case closing as set forth in Appendix B, multiplied by (ii) the number of months the case was closed during the case closing relief period.
c. For multiple Negative Case Actions: class members shall be entitled to Tier I Relief for each Negative Case Action occurring during the relevant relief period but in no event shall the Tier I Relief for any month exceed the amount for the total monthly grant for the household size listed on Appendix B. Where more than one Negative Case Action affected a class member at the same time, the class member will receive the maximum payment amount for the household size without duplication.
20. "Tier II Relief' means payment of Cash Assistance benefits issued to redress the loss of such benefits because of a Negative Case Action, which shall be calculated by applying the formula for calculating Tier I Relief (as described in paragraph 19 above), and reducing the total amount of Tier I Relief by one-half (50%).
-6-

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 7 of 13
21. "Effective Date" shall mean the effective date of this settlement, which shall be the date on which it is so-ordered by the Court.
CASH ASSISTANCE
22. Eligibility for Tier I and Tier II relief shall be determined as follows:
a. Class members in the Did Not Attend Hub Center Appointment For Recertification Group, the Did Not Attend Other Required Hub Center Appointment Group, the M3G Group, and the PRIDE Group who are not Non-Enrolled Persons, are eligible for Tier I Relief if they were otherwise eligible for Cash Assistance but for the failure to attend the appointment that led to a Negative Case Action.
b. Class members in the Fair Hearing Group who are not Non-Enrolled Persons are eligible for Tier I Relief if they were otherwise eligible for Cash Assistance but for the failure to attend an appointment that led to a Negative Case Action, except that members of the Fair Hearing Group will not be issued Tier I Relief if the benefits they lost due to a Negative Case Action were fully restored as a result of a fair hearing.
c. Class members in the Conciliation Group who are not Non-Enrolled Persons, are eligible for Tier I Relief if they were otherwise eligible for Cash Assistance but for the failure to attend an appointment that led to a Negative Case Action, except those class members in the Conciliation Group who appeared at the conciliation appointment and were not granted good cause al the appointment.
d. Class members in the Associated Persons Group are eligible for Tier II Relief.
23. Tier I and Tier II Relief will be issued to class members with open or closed cases as provided in sub-paragraphs (a) through (d) below for Cash Assistance benefits lost due to Negative Case Actions during the relevant relief period. No class member will be issued Tier I or Tier II Relief if the benefits they lost due lo a Negative Case Action were previously fully restored.
a. Payment Amount: The amount of Tier I and Tier II Relief due to all class members, regardless of how issued or paid, will be calculated based on the eligibility criteria described in paragraphs 19, 20, and 22 above, with the exception that class members who are individuals who have been identified as having "closed" cases as of the Closed Case Determination Date will be compensated with a cash payment equal to one-half (50%) of the Tier I or Tier II Relief they would have otherwise obtained had their cases been open as of the Closed Case Determination Date.
b. Payment to Open Cases: On the Open Case Payment Date Defendant will issue retroactive Cash Assistance to all class members with open Cash Assistance cases on the Closed Case Determination Date who are determined eligible for Tier I or Tier II Relief pursuant to paragraph 22 above.
-7-

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 8 of 13
c. Payment to Closed Cases that are active for SNAP or Medicaid: Within thirty (30) days of the Open Case Payment Date, Defendant will issue cash payments according to the provisions of sub-paragraph 23(a), above, to the class members who: (1) are eligible for Tier I or Tier II Relief but who did not receive such relief because their Cash Assistance cases were not open as of the Closed Case Detennination Date, but (2) are current recipients of Medicaid and/or SNAP benefits from Defendant.
d. Payment to Closed Cases that are Inactive for SNAP or Medicaid: With respect to class members who had a closed Cash Assistance case as of the Closed Case Determination Date but were not paid pursuant to sub-paragraph 23(c):
(i) Outreach: Defendant will mail each such class member an outreach notice to his or her last known mailing address in the New York State Welfare Management System (WMS) requesting that he or she sign and return an enclosed form with the class member's current mailing address. Such outreach notice shall indicate only the gross amounts of benefits due and be sent on a schedule of mailing 25% of the total number of outreach letters every month beginning four months after the Effective Date. Class Members will have sixty (60) days from the date of the mailing of the letter to return the form.
(ii) Responder List, and Payment: Beginning thitty (30) days after mailing the first set of outreach notices, Defendant shall produce to class counsel a Responder List with the identifying information (including updated addresses) of all class members who have been mailed an outreach notice and class members who have responded to outreach notices within twentyfive (25) days of the mailing, and all class members for whom the outreach letter was returned as undeliverable or wrong address. Every thirty (30) days, thereafter until all payments to closed cases have been made, defendant will produce a cumulative list showing responses and returned mail. The cumulative lists will be current as of five days before the production date of the list. Within ninety (90) days of each Responder List, defendant will issue payment to each class member added to the list who timely responded to the outreach mailing.
e. Class counsel shall be notified within ten ( l 0) days of the completion of the payments required by subparagraphs 23(b), (c), and (d), above.
f. At the Closed Case Determination Date Defendant will determine the household with which the class member was associated at the time Cash Assistance benefits were lost due to Negative Case Actions ("original household") and will issue retroactive payments as follows:
- 8-

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 9 of 13
(i) If the original household's Cash Assistance case is in active status, the retroactive payment will be issued to the head of household of the original household pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 23(a) and (b) above;
(ii) If the head of household of the original household is the head of household on an active Cash Assistance case with a different case number, the retroactive payment will be issued to the head of household on the new case pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 23(a) and (b) above
(iii) If the original household's case is closed and the class member is on another active Cash Assistance case, the head of that household will be issued the retroactive payment pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 23(a) and (b) above
(iv) If (a) the class member's original household's case is closed or the original head of household is no longer on the original household's case; (b) the head of household of the original household is not the head of household of an active Cash Assistance case with a different number; and (c) the class member is not associated with any other active Cash Assistance case, then the Closed-Case retroactive payment will issue pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 23(a), (c), and (d), above..
RETROACTIVE SNAP BENEFITS
24. Unless and until the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approves the terms of this section of the Stipulation pertaining to retroactive SNAP benefits, which approval the Defendant shall promptly seek through the appropriate State agency, Defendant shall not be obligated to, nor shall it, perfonn the restoration of SNAP benefits described in paragraphs 27 and 28, below.
25. Subject to approval by the USDA, retroactive SNAP benefits shall be provided only to class members who lost SNAP benefits due to Negative Case Actions that have not previously been restored.
26. In the event such approval by the USDA as described in paragraphs 24 and 25 is not obtained within 120 days of the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs shall have the right to restore this matter to the calendar for the limited purpose of seeking a judgment with respect to the loss of SNAP benefits associated with Negative Case Actions.
27. The amount of retroactive SNAP benefits due to the class members who lost SNAP benefits due to a case closing shall be calculated by multiplying: (i) the average monthly SNAP allotment by household size in New York City for July 2006, by (ii) the number of months of lost SNAP benefits attributed to the Negative Case Action. For closed cases, the number of months of lost SNAP benefits attributed to the Negative Case Action ends no later than July 31, 2006. For class members who lost SNAP benefits due to a sanction, the amount of retroactive SNAP benefits shall be calculated by multiplying
-9-

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 10 of 13
the pro rata share of the sanctioned household member by the number of months under sanction. For class members who lost SNAP benefits as a result of a sanction, the restoration of benefits ends no later than January 31, 2007. The average monthly SNAP allotments by household size in New York City for July 2006 arc set forth in Appendix C , annexed hereto.
28. Within sixty (60) days of approval by USDA of the terms of this Stipulation, but no earlier than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, class members entitled to retroactive SNAP benefits shall have access to such benefits in their EBT accounts. Defendant shall send class members entitled to retroactive SNAP benefits a letter notifying them that they may access such benefits using their existing EBT card and PIN; the letter will also indicate that class members who no longer have EBT cards may contact HRA for instructions on how to obtain a new EBT card.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEDICAID-COVERED EXPENSES
29. For each class member entitled to Tier I and Tier II Relief whose Cash Assistance case closed with a WMS closing code that does not require a separate determination of Medicaid eligibility, Defendant will send an outreach letter to be agreed on by the parties, telling the class member that if he or she incuITed any Medicaid-covered expenses during the period covered by the Class Member's retroactive Cash Assistance payment, he or she should submit proof of such expenses to the Medicaid Reimbursement Unit within ninety (90) days of receipt of the outreach letter; provided, however, that no outreach letter will be sent to any class member found to have had Medicaid during the period covered by the retroactive Cash Assistance payment, or to any class member whose eligibility for Medicaid was assessed during the period covered by the retroactive Cash Assistance payment and who was found ineligible. If the Medicaid Reimbursement Unit finds that the claims are for Medicaid-covered services, the Medicaid Reimbursement Unit will either pay the provider or reimburse the class member at the Medicaid rate in effect at the time the expense was incurred.
PRE-ISSUANCE ACCURACY ASSURANCES
30. Beginning no later than thirty (30) days after the signing of this Stipulation, and to be completed no later than sixty (60) days after the signing of this Stipulation, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel on a rolling basis, with case information extracted from HRA's Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) for twenty-five (25) representative cases to be agreed upon by the parties. The infomrntion to be provided for each case shall include: the name of the class member; the case number(s) at the time of the Negative Case Action and any different case number at the time the infonnation is furnished; the household size at the time of the Negative Case Action; the type of Negative Case Action ( i.e., whether it is a Cash Assistance sanction, a Cash Assistance closing unrelated to a sanction; a SNAP sanction, or a SNAP case closing); the date the Negative Case
- 10 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 11 of 13
Action was implemented; the duration of lost benefits that are being included in the retroactive benefit payment; and, for Cash Assistance payments, whether the individual is considered an Associated Person pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 11 and 22(d); and the monthly and total amounts of any retroactive benefit calculation, without regard to whether a discount will ultimately be applied to any Cash Assistance payment if the case is considered a closed case pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 23(c) and (d). Defendant shall also indicate for each case whether the Class Member is a current recipient of Cash Assistance, SNAP or Medicaid, with the understanding that such status may change prior to the "Closed Case Determination Date." Class Counsel shaJI have reasonable access upon reasonable notice to relevant case information pertaining to Negative Case Actions and retroactive payment calculations to evaluate the accuracy of the processes Defendant is using to calculate retroactive payments, to the extent that such case information exists independent ofEDW.
CASE DETERMINATION INFORMATION AND APPEALS PROCESS
31. No more than ten (10) days after the Closed Case Determination Date, HRA will provide to Class Counsel a Case Determination Infonnation spreadsheet that provides: the name of the class member; the name of the payee; the address of the payee; the case number(s) (including, where appropriate, the case number of the class member at the time of the Negative Case Action and any different case number at the time of payment); an indication of which class members are being provided outreach notices pursuant to paragraph 23(d); the household size at the time of the Negative Case Action; the date the Negative Case Action was implemented; the type of Negative Case Action (i.e., whether it is a sanction, a Cash Assistance closing unrelated to a sanction; a SNAP sanction, or a SNAP case closing); the monthly amount of benefits to be issued; the duration of lost benefits; the total amount of benefits to be issued; whether a case is being treated as open or closed as of the Closed Case Determination Date; and if the individual is considered an Associated Person pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 11 and 22(d).
32. Notices accompanying retroactive payments will contain the name of the class member; the case numbcr(s) at the time of the Negative Case Action and any different case number at the time the information is furnished; the household size at the time of the Negative Case Action; the type of Negative Case Action (i.e., whether it is a Cash Assistance sanction, a Cash Assistance closing unrelated to a sanction; a SNAP sanction, or a SNAP case closing); the date the Negative Case Action was implemented; the duration of lost benefits that are being included in the retroactive benefit payment; and, for Cash Assistance payments, whether the individual is considered an Associated Person pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 11 and 22(d); and the monthly and total amounts of any retroactive benefit calculation; and whether any Cash Assistance payment is being treated as a closed case pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 23(c) and (d) and inform class members that, if they wish additional information about the settlement or an explanation of the calculations underlying their benefit payments, they should contact Class Counsel, at a number set forth in the notices. Defendant will provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a draft notice within thi11y (30) days of the date the parties sign
- 11 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 12 of 13
the Stipulation. Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to comment and will return such comments no later than ten (10) days after receiving the draft notice.
33. Class Counsel shall have reasonable access, upon reasonable notice, to relevant info1mation in Class Members' individual case files to investigate any questions raised by a Class Member as to the Defendants' compliance with the tenns of this Stipulation.
34. If, and only if, Class Counsel detennine that any Class Member's concerns about the benefit payment are based upon a possible error in the benefit calculation (and not upon a more general dissatisfaction or disagreement with the negotiated terms of this Stipulation), Class Counsel shall apprise Defendant's counsel, in writing, of the possible error. Defendants will have ten ( 10) business days to provide Class Counsel with an explanation of the calculation; and the parties will have an additional sixty (60) days to attempt to resolve any remaining questions or concerns about the benefit calculation.
35. In the event that Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel cannot resolve the issue, Class Counsel, within fifteen ( 15) days after notifying Defendant's counsel, in writing, of their intention to do so, may raise the issue with the Court for appropriate resolution.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - EXPUNGMENT OF EMPLOYMENT RELATED SANCTIONS
36. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, Defendants shall reduce the number of completed sanctions in each class member's Client Infraction History by one for each sanction that is a Negative Case Action as defined in paragraph 18 above.
RELEASE AND WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIMS
37. As of the Effective Date, the claims and requests for relief by the plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class, that are set forth in the following paragraphs in the Amended Complaint, are dismissed with prejudice: ~~ 206(A)-(B); 206E; 208; 214(A), (B), and (E); 216; 218(A)-(B); 219(A)-(B); 222; 225; 227; 228(B), (C), and (F); 234(a)(b); and 236; subject to the provisions of paragraph 26, above, with respect to Plaintiffs' right, in the event of a failure of USDA to approve the settlement provisions, to pursue claims for lost SNAP benefits associated with Negative Case Actions.
ATTORNEYS' FEES
38. Plaintiffs reserve the right to apply to the Court to recover costs and fees within fortyfive (45) days of the Effective Date of this Stipulation and Defendant reserves the right to oppose such an application.
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by Defendant of any of Plaintiffs' allegations, nor an admission by Defendant that it has in any manner or way
- 12 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 270 Filed 11/25/14 Page 13 of 13

violated Plaintiffs' rights, nor a concession by Defendant as to any of the legal positions set forth in Plaintiffs' First and Second Motions for Partial Summary Judgment.
40. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute evidence of a policy or practice of HRA or the Ciry of New York.
41. A facsimile copy of this Stipulation shall be deemed an original for all purposes.

DATED:
The Legal Aid Society Law Reform Unit Civil Practice I99 Water Street, 3rd Floor New York, New York 10038

ZACHARY CARTER Corporation Counsel of the City
of New York I00 Church Street, Rm. 2-113 New York, New York 10007

~p&~s~J
(212) 577-3988 ks1ephens11rlegal-u id .org For Plaintiffs
SO ORDERED, this 3.l,..:s:'-dray of

0 C\-o I~, 2014

______If /3. ~ Judge Katherine B. Forrest

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------X

LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., AND MICHELE :

N., individually and on behalf of all other :

similarly situated,

:

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

-v-

:

:

VERNA EGGLESTON, as Commissioner of :

the New York City Human Resources

:

Administration,

:

:

Defendant. :

------------------------------------------------------------- X

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: March 11, 2015
05 Civ. 6920 (KBF)
ORDER

KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement

(see attached) and preliminarily approves it, subject to the fairness hearing.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York March 11, 2015

___________________________________ KATHERINE B. FORREST United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., and MICHELE N., COURTNEY B., LAURA S., EULA S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
- against -
VERNA EGGLESTON,1 as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant.

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT
05 CV 6920 (KBF)

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a class action Complaint on or about August 3, 2005, alleging, inter alia, that the transfer by the New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) of the public assistance cases of individuals from their local Job Centers to one of three specialized centers (“WeCARE hubs” or “hubs”) in connection with the implementation of the Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment (“WeCARE”) program, violated state, federal, and local law;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs simultaneously moved for class certification and a preliminary injunction;
WHEREAS, in a decision dated April 19, 2006, the Court certified a class consisting of “recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who have received or will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily transferring their case to one of three ‘hub
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 25(d)(1), Commissioner Steven Banks is automatically substituted as a party for claims originally brought against Verna Eggleston, the former Commissioner of the Human Resources Administration.

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 52
centers’ in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program” and a subclass within the main class of members “who (a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (b) have a record of such an impairment, or (c) are regarded as having such an impairment,” Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 235 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2006);
WHEREAS, in the April 19, 2006, decision, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to the extent that Defendant was prohibited from reassigning Class Members’ (and their associated persons’) cases to the hub centers involuntarily and Defendant was ordered to offer WeCARE participants already reassigned to a hub center the option of conducting through their nearest neighborhood center all of the interactions available to non-disabled benefit recipients through those offices, id. at 262-63;
WHEREAS, by letter dated May 3, 2006, HRA informed the Court that it intended to close the WeCARE hubs and transfer hub clients to the local center that served their zip code of residence, see letter from Martha Calhoun to Hon. Laura Taylor Swain, May 3, 2006;
WHEREAS, the last hub center was closed in July 2006;
WHEREAS, by Notice of Motion dated August 4, 2006, Plaintiffs moved to amend the Complaint;
WHEREAS, by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 15, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the Complaint;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint dated December 11, 2006;
WHEREAS, by Stipulation so ordered by this Court on February 3, 2010, the class definition was amended to be:
recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who (1) are or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program or (2) individuals who were part of a case that was designated as “homebound” by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code 19HC;
- 2 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 52
WHEREAS, by Stipulation so-ordered by this Court on February 1, 2011, the class definition was further amended to be:
Individuals who meet one of the following three criteria: (1) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are, were, or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program; or (2) individuals who were recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who were part of a case that was designated as “homebound” by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code 19HC or (3) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of cash assistance and/or food stamps who have a physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law § 292(21) and who request to be designated as “homebound” by HRA;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant HRA (collectively, “the Parties”) previously entered into a Stipulation submitted to the Court dated March 14, 2012, resolving, subject to approval by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (“OTDA”), issues related to Plaintiffs’ claims for benefits lost in connection with the implementation of the WeCARE hubs for Class Members with active Cash Assistance cases, and on March 15, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted a Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. No. 164) concerning entitlement to retroactive Cash Assistance benefits for Class Members with closed cases;
WHEREAS, in December 2013, the Parties asked the Court to adjourn the scheduled trial to permit the Parties to proceed with a settlement process;
WHEREAS, the Parties executed a Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement dated August 7, 2014 (“Partial Settlement Stipulation”), that resolved Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding claims for retroactive Cash Assistance, SNAP, and Medicaid for Class Members with closed cases;
WHEREAS, by Stipulation so-ordered by this Court on September 19, 2014, the Parties agreed to interim treatment of Class Members, specified therein, that has occurred while settlement negotiations on the remaining issues in this action have proceeded (the “Interim Agreement”);
- 3 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 52
WHEREAS, the Court subsequently held a fairness hearing regarding the Partial Settlement Stipulation on October 31, 2014, and, by Order issued on that date, contingently found the Partial Settlement Stipulation to be fair, reasonable, and adequate;
WHEREAS, the Court stated in its October 31, 2014, Order that its approval of the Partial Settlement Stipulation would be effective on November 24, 2014, assuming no objections were received by that date, in accordance with the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005;
WHEREAS, by Order dated November 24, 2014, the Court approved the Partial Settlement Stipulation;
WHEREAS, the Parties have continued to negotiate the injunctive relief portion of the settlement of this litigation;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to resolve the remaining issues raised in this litigation without further proceedings;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to settle this action on terms and conditions just and fair to all Parties;
WHEREAS, the Parties have conducted extensive, arms-length negotiations to resolve the remaining issues in this action, and have resolved those issues as specified in this Stipulation and Order of Settlement (“this Stipulation”);
WHEREAS, HRA is undertaking a number of agency-wide reforms designed to improve access to benefits, increase participation in programs, and minimize unnecessary Negative Case Actions for all HRA clients;
WHEREAS, HRA is undertaking an agency-wide initiative to review and revise its written materials with the goal of improved clarity and simplicity;
WHEREAS, HRA is undertaking a number of initiatives to improve communication between the Agency and its clients, including expanding the modes of communication available such as the ability to transact business remotely;
- 4 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 6 of 52
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS:
DEFINITIONS
1. “Autoposting Negative Case Actions” means an HRA computer practice by which a Negative Case Action is imposed automatically, without first requiring a staff member to review relevant information in the case file or to contact the client.
2. “BEV” means the HRA “Bureau of Eligibility Verification.”
3. “BPS” means the “Biopyschosocial Assessment” conducted by WeCARE to evaluate a client’s functional capacity and ability to participate in work activities.
4. “Cash Assistance” or “CA” means Family Assistance benefits authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-7, and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611 et seq., implemented in New York pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 349 et seq.; and/or Safety Net Assistance benefits provided pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 157 et seq.
5. “Class Member” means an individual who falls within the class definition certified by the Court in Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 05 CV 6920 as amended most recently by Order of the Court dated February 1, 2011:
Individuals who meet one of the following three criteria: (1) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are, were, or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program; or (2) individuals who were recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who were part of a case that was designated as “homebound” by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code 19HC or (3) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of cash assistance and/or food stamps who have a physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law § 292(21) and who request to be designated as “homebound” by HRA.
- 5 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 7 of 52
6. “Conciliation” means an opportunity to discuss with HRA staff whether an alleged infraction in an HRA-required work activity was “willful” and without “good cause,” as provided by N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 341.
7. “Conference” is a client-initiated discussion with HRA staff provided by 18 N.Y.C.R.R § 358-2.4.
8. “CRT” means “Clinical Review Team” and refers to a WeCARE review or reassessment of a Class Member’s functional capacity and ability to participate in work activities.
9. “Disability Inquiry Methods” means the range of tools used by the Agency to identify individuals who may need RAs for disabilities, including Disability Inquiry Scripts, Learning Disabilities and Cognitive Impairment Screening tools, Mental Health Screening Tools and any such other tools the Agency may adopt in consultation with the Expert Consultant retained pursuant to paragraph 50(b) of this Stipulation.
10. “Disability Insert” refers to a notice informing clients how to request an RA that also serves as a form for that purpose. The current version of the form is HRA-102c (01/26/15), which may be changed by the agreement of the Parties.
11. “DVE” refers to the Diagnostic Vocational Evaluation conducted for Class Members assigned to the VRS track.
12. “Effective Date” refers to the date on which all of the following have occurred:
a. The Court has so-ordered and entered the Stipulation and Order of Settlement, following notice to the Class and a fairness hearing as prescribed by Rules 23(c)(2) & 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715;
b. The Court has entered an Order and Final Judgment in this action, and 30 days have passed after entry of the Order and Final Judgment. If there is an appeal (or if there are multiple
- 6 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 8 of 52
appeals) of the Court’s Order and Final Judgment, the Defendant may move for a stay of the Effective Date. 13. “Effective Period” refers to the period that begins on the Effective Date and ends on the date that the Court’s jurisdiction over this Stipulation and Order terminates.
14. “FCO” refers to Functional Capacity Outcome, the indication of a Class Member’s ability to participate in HRA work activity programs which is the outcome of the WeCARE BPS and/or CRT assessment.
15. “Federal Disability Benefits” means the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and Social Security Disability (“SSD”) programs administered by the Social Security Administration under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq.
16. “Home Visit Needed/Homebound” or “HVN/HB” is a Reasonable Accommodation that excuses a Class Member from attending HRA or Vendor appointments outside of the home by reason of a physical, mental, or medical impairment.
17. “HRA” or “the Agency” means the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York.
18. “Infoline” means a telephone call center operated by HRA or Vendor staff to address client inquiries and respond to information requests from clients.
19. “Interim Agreement” means the Stipulation so-ordered by the Court on September 19, 2014.
20. “Job Center” means any so-designated HRA office that administers Cash Assistance cases for Class Members.
21. “Medicaid” means the federal medical assistance program authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-7, and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611 et seq. and implemented in New York State pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 363 et seq.; or the New York State medical assistance program authorized by N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 363 et seq.
- 7 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 9 of 52
22. “Negative Case Action” is a reduction or discontinuance of Cash Assistance, including a sanction or case closing.
23. “New York State Modified Mini Screen” means the mental health screen that has been validated by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
24. “Notice of Decision” means a notice HRA uses to advise clients of various case actions that affect their benefits.
25. “OCSE” means the HRA Office of Child Support Enforcement.
26. “Reasonable Accommodation” or “RA” means a change or adjustment to the Agency’s policies or procedures to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability and to afford qualified individuals with meaningful access to the benefits and services provided by the Agency.
27. “Residual Functional Capacity” or “RFC” is a term used by the Social Security Administration and defined in regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945.
28. “Robo-call” refers to an automated telephone call to clients to communicate a pre-recorded, scripted message.
29. “Successful Instance of Outreach” means outreach resulting in compliance.
30. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” or “SNAP” (formerly known as “Food Stamps”) means the program that provides benefits pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-7, and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611 et seq. and implemented in New York by N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 95 & 97.
31. “SNAP Access Alternatives” means the methods of communicating with HRA regarding a SNAP Only Case other than through a face-to-face appointment at a SNAP Only Center, including telephone, mail, Internet, facsimile, or through the client’s authorized representative.
32. “SNAP Only Case” shall mean a case in which the individual is or was a recipient of SNAP but is not currently receiving Cash Assistance benefits. A
- 8 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 10 of 52
SNAP Only Case may or may not include an individual who is a recipient of Medicaid benefits.
33. “SNAP Only Center” is an HRA office that administers SNAP Only Cases.
34. “SSI” means “Supplemental Security Income,” a Federal Disability Benefit program administered by the Social Security Administration.
35. “Travel Companion” refers to a person whose availability HRA must take into account when scheduling appointments for a client so that the person can accompany the client to HRA appointments.
36. “Vendor” means an entity that, through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, provides services or activities on behalf of HRA to HRA clients.
37. “VRS” refers to the WeCARE Vocational Rehabilitation Services track.
38. “WeCARE” refers to the program through which HRA and its vendors, including any subcontractors, assess the extent and impact of applicant and recipient disabilities and provide them with assistance related to employment, training, or other programs. This includes any successor program to WeCARE operated either by HRA itself or through a Vendor that serves essentially the same or similar functions.
39. “Wellness” refers to the WeCARE Wellness Track.”
40. “WEP” means the “Work Experience Program” as defined in N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 336-c.
DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATIONS
41. HRA agrees to implement the policies and practices contained in this Stipulation within six (6) months of the Effective Date unless otherwise specified herein or the parties agree to a longer implementation period. Defendant will continue to comply with the provisions of the Stipulation soordered by the Court on September 19, 2014 (the “Interim Agreement”), for six (6) months after the Effective Date, at which point the Parties will meet
- 9 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 11 of 52
and confer about whether the Interim Agreement or any provision thereof should be terminated or modified. Plaintiffs will not unreasonably refuse a request by Defendants to modify the terms of the Interim Agreement, to the extent that such modification is either (a) necessary to implement a provision of this Stipulation or (b) warranted based on a change in circumstances, including the introduction of other protections of Class Members from unwarranted interruptions of benefits.
42. HRA will provide drafts of all policies and procedures created or modified as a result of this Stipulation, including those of WeCARE, to Plaintiffs’ counsel for their review and comment. Plaintiffs’ counsel will provide any comments within fourteen (14) days or as otherwise agreed to by the parties. If Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that Defendant’s failure to incorporate Plaintiffs’ counsel’s comments and recommendations is not minimal, but is sufficiently significant as to constitute a systemic failure to comply with the provisions of this Stipulation, Plaintiffs may seek relief from the Court consistent with paragraphs 141 through 143.
43. HRA will conduct a review of its current procedures including those of WeCARE and Vendors that serve Class Members to ensure that Class Members are able to obtain benefits and maintain access to benefits and that its methods of administration do not discriminate on the basis of disability and will revise and reissue any procedures as necessary (“Disability Impact Review”). Going forward, HRA will conduct a Disability Impact Review of new policies affecting Class Members before they are published.
44. HRA will not discriminate against Class Members on the basis of disability or handicap in any of its programs, including those programs operated by WeCARE.
45. HRA and WeCARE will have effective systems in place to consistently accept and record requests for RAs and provide needed RAs to Class Members to enable them to access HRA benefits and services and to maintain access to HRA benefits and services.
- 10 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 12 of 52
46. HRA and WeCARE will provide effective and adequate notice of RA rights, determinations, and procedures to Class Members.
47. Class Members can ask for disability help and/or a reasonable accommodation (“RA”) at any portal of the Agency and WeCARE.
48. Any request made by a Class Member to obtain help to access benefits or maintain access to benefits that is related to disability will be deemed a request for an RA by HRA and WeCARE.
49. If HRA contracts with outside Vendors to do tasks that HRA is obligated to do under this Stipulation, the relevant provisions of this Stipulation will apply to such Vendors.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROVISIONS
Reasonable Accommodation Process
50. Identification of Persons Needing Disability Help/Disability Screening:
a. Disability Inquiry Methods. HRA will develop and HRA and WeCARE will implement “Disability Inquiry Methods,” consisting of a range of tools to identify individuals who may need RAs for disabilities in order to comply with program requirements and maintain their access to benefits as described in paragraphs 51 through 52.
b. Expert Consultant. Defendant will retain an expert consultant to assist in the development and implementation of the Disability Inquiry Methods described in paragraphs 51 through 52 (the “Expert Consultant”). The Expert Consultant may, upon agreement of the Parties, be asked to consult on the development and implementation of other policies pursuant to this Stipulation. Defendant will solicit recommendations from Plaintiffs’ counsel and seek their agreement on the expert selected; Plaintiffs will not unreasonably withhold their agreement. Implementation in areas for which the Defendant retains the Expert Consultant will be completed within six (6) months of the recommendations of
- 11 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 13 of 52
the Expert Consultant, which shall be issued within 120 days of the Effective Date, unless an alternative date is agreed upon by the Parties in consultation with the Expert Consultant.
51. Disability Inquiry Methods
a. Disability Inquiry Scripts. With the help of the Expert Consultant described in paragraph 50(b) above, HRA will develop and use Disability Inquiry Scripts, which shall be guided questions to aid HRA and Vendor staff in identifying client disabilities that may pose barriers to complying with program requirements and/or maintaining access to benefits as well as needed RAs. Disability Inquiry Scripts shall be used at application and recertification, and a broad range of interactions between clients and the Agency as recommended by the Expert Consultant and in consultation with Plaintiffs’ counsel.
b. Learning Disabilities and Cognitive Impairments Screening. With the help of the Expert Consultant, HRA will develop tools to identify clients who have learning disabilities or cognitive impairments to the extent that such tools are brief and can be effectively administered by non-clinical HRA or Vendor staff. This Learning Disability and Cognitive Impairment Screening will be voluntary and will be offered at application (including re-applications), recertification, upon client request, and at any other client interactions and other events recommended by the Expert Consultant and agreed to by the parties.
c. Mental Health Screening. HRA will implement voluntary mental health screening, such as the New York State Modified Mini Screen within six (6) months of the Effective Date of this Stipulation, unless an alternative date is agreed upon by the Parties in consultation with the Expert Consultant. The Mental Health Screening will be made available to be taken voluntarily by clients at application (including re-applications), recertification, upon client request, and other events
- 12 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 14 of 52
recommended by the Expert Consultant and agreed to by the Parties.
52. HRA will review policies with respect to those Class Members who are referred to both Substance Use assessment and WeCARE to provide a process for identifying and implementing needed RAs.
53. Actions based on Information from Disability Inquiry Methods. With the help of the Expert Consultant, HRA will develop protocols for the Agency and WeCARE to act upon the information yielded from the Disability Inquiry Methods to offer RAs, make appropriate referrals, and to prevent inappropriate Negative Case Actions consistent with paragraphs 103 through 109. Clients referred to WeCARE from Job Centers will be screened for needed RAs as described in paragraphs 50 through 52 above and will be offered RAs to address identified needs to enable Class Members to attend WeCARE appointments. WeCARE will review the results of any Disability Inquiries referenced above that have been conducted. To the extent such Disability Inquiries have not been conducted, WeCARE will conduct these inquiries or an equivalent approved by the Expert Consultant. With the help of the Expert Consultant, WeCARE will develop Protocols to act upon the information yielded from the Disability Inquiry Methods. Plaintiffs will be provided with copies of any Disability Inquiry Methods and Protocols for their review and comment. Comments will be provided within fourteen (14) days unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties.
54. Right not to disclose a disability or to accept an RA. Clients cannot be required to disclose a disability or to accept an RA. In instances where HRA, including WeCARE, suspects that a Class Member has a disability and s/he is unwilling to disclose the disability or cooperate with efforts to identify the suspected disability, the need to comply with program requirements and available RAs that may assist the Class Member in complying with program requirements will be discussed. If the Class Member does not disclose or cooperate, s/he may be required to comply with program requirements without RAs. HRA will also offer the Class Member a referral to WeCARE. The Expert Consultant will assist HRA and
- 13 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 15 of 52
WeCARE to develop a protocol for handling such cases to maximize compliance with HRA requirements consistent with existing regulations.
55. Self-identified need for RAs. Clients may self-identify the need for an RA. Clients need not undergo screenings, including those as specified in paragraphs 50 and 51 before requesting an RA of HRA or WeCARE.
56. Reasonable Accommodations Available to Clients. HRA and WeCARE will accept for consideration all requests for RAs made by Class Members.
a. Menu of Reasonable Accommodations. HRA will maintain a Menu of Reasonable Accommodations (“RA Menu”) which shall be a non-exclusive list of types of RAs that may be provided by the Agency and WeCARE. Even if a particular RA is not on the RA Menu, the request must still be considered. At a minimum, this RA Menu will include the following RAs: i. No appointments during rush hour; ii. Flexible Scheduling (because of a disability the Class Member cannot travel at or is not available for certain days and times and needs appointments scheduled consistent with those limitations);
iii. Priority Queuing to minimize wait times; iv. Assistance with reading applications or forms; v. Assistance with completing applications or forms; vi. Scheduling of appointments based on Travel Companion
availability; vii. Individualized assistance for the blind/visually impaired; viii. Sign Language Interpreter; ix. Individualized assistance for the hearing impaired;
x. Case transfers or blocking case transfers to new centers; xi. Temporary travel exemption for pending para-transit (Access-
A-Ride) approval; and
- 14 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 16 of 52
xii. Home Visits Needed/Homebound (“HVN/HB”) status.
b. Provision of RAs in Waiting Rooms and Non-Job Center locations. HRA and Vendor staff will be trained to identify and to the extent feasible offer RAs to those who need them at reception in Job Centers, BEV, OCSE Borough Offices, and WeCARE. HRA will develop and implement methods to monitor the provision of such RAs.
57. Recording Requests for Reasonable Accommodations. The following types of RA requests will be recorded in a manner that allows for their implementation Agency-wide and at Vendor locations:
a. Menu RAs. Requests for RAs that are listed on the RA Menu in paragraph 56(a) (“Menu RA”) will be recorded; and, where a Class Member needs a Menu RA to attend an initial appointment at an HRA or Vendor site, the request will be recorded in such a manner that enables the Agency to provide the RA for the initial appointment.
b. Additional time to meet a deadline. Requests from Class Members for additional time to meet a deadline will be recorded.
c. Other RAs Needed More than One Time. Any other type of RA that is reasonably anticipated to be needed more than one time (on an ongoing basis) will be recorded.
d. Work-Related RAs. Any request for an RA needed by a VRS client to participate in work activities, including RAs that are related to a specific job site, such as a piece of adaptive equipment, will be presumed to be needed more than one time and will be recorded.
58. Submission of Documents in Support of RA Requests. Clients will be able to submit documents in support of their RA request by mail, fax, or email and will be given receipts for those submissions.
59. Provisional RA Implementation: RAs provided pending RA determination and appeal. When a Class Member requests an RA from the
- 15 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 17 of 52
RA Menu, other than those related to center transfers, the RA will be provided provisionally during the period that the RA request is being processed and until the appeal period has ended. HRA and WeCARE will provide RAs not included on the RA menu during the period that the RA request is being processed and until the appeal period has ended, unless doing so is not operationally feasible.
60. Job Center Transfer RAs. When Class Members request RAs for Job Center transfers, their cases will be monitored so that no Negative Case Actions related to failures to appear at their Job Centers will be implemented.
61. Notice Confirming Request for Reasonable Accommodation. Clients who request ongoing RAs (those recorded pursuant to paragraph 57) will be given written notice confirming receipt of the RA request, listing the RA requested, and explaining that the RA will be implemented pending a final determination. The notice will include a telephone number to contact HRA or WeCARE for any inquiries related to the RA request. The notice will be provided in-person when Class Members make requests at Job Centers and, wherever possible, the information will also be conveyed orally. Clients who are provided an RA to attend an initial appointment at an HRA Vendor will be given a notice describing the RA.
62. Medical Documentation and Provision of RAs
a. RAs that will be granted without medical documentation. HRA workers and Vendor staff will grant the following RAs on an ongoing basis without any medical documentation from Class Members: i. Sign Language Interpreter; ii. Individualized assistance for the hearing impaired;
iii. Individualized assistance for the blind/visually impaired; iv. Assistance with reading applications or forms; v. Assistance with completing applications or forms;
- 16 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 18 of 52
vi. RAs, except for Home Visits Needed/Homebound (“HVN/HB”) status and priority queuing, for Class Members permanently exempt from work requirements, such as those of at least 60 years of age;
vii. RAs needed to attend initial appointments at HRA programs and other vendor sites, including WeCARE, and/or otherwise comply with initial WeCARE requirements.
b. Where medical documentation is required. For Class Members required to submit medical documentation in support of a request for an RA, HRA and WeCARE will:
i. accept documentation from all providers and weigh the documentation provided consistent with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) “Treating Physician Rule” as specified in paragraph 79 below;
ii. inform Class Members that assistance is available when needed to help secure medical documentation and provide such assistance when it is requested;
iii. give Class Members thirty (30) days to submit any required medical documentation and an additional fifteen (15) days upon request;
iv. in circumstances where a provider demands payment for Class Member records, either assist with obtaining the records or pay for the records;
v. for Class Members who have requested HVN/HB status, HRA will search its own records for documentation regarding home care services or home attendant services, supportive housing applications filed (HRA 2010e forms), and WeCARE records from the past 12 months. Where such records are located, they will be used to inform the decision on the HVN/HB request and will only be used to deny the HVN/HB request if no other documentation is available and Outreach pursuant to paragraph 62(b)(viii) has been conducted.
- 17 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 19 of 52
vi. For Class Members who have requested an RA and have been evaluated by WeCARE within the past 12 months, and who are being required to submit medical documentation, WeCARE records will be searched for the past 12 months for relevant documentation; and will be used to inform the decision on the RA request and will only be used to deny the RA request when no other documentation is available and Outreach pursuant to paragraph 62(b)(viii) has been conducted.
vii. Where the medical documentation in a Class Member’s file indicates that the Class Member has a chronic or persistent medical condition that imposes permanent functional impairments, an RA request will not be denied on the basis that the information is out of date;
viii. Where a Class Member has been required to submit medical documentation in support of an RA request and no such documentation has been received, HRA will conduct outreach to inform the Class Member of the need to submit medical documentation and the availability of assistance to obtain documentation prior to sending a Final Notice of Determination denying the RA request for lack of medical documentation.
63. Reasonable Accommodation Determination Process
a. Client Phone Number Inquiry and Additional Contacts. During the RA request process HRA will record client contact information along with (1) a secondary telephone number, if the Class Member chooses to provide it at which a Class Member wishes to be contacted; and (2) HRA will use the secondary telephone number when attempting to reach the Class Member by telephone. HRA will explain to Class Members that they have the option to use a mailing address that is different from their residential address.
- 18 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 20 of 52
b. Process for Review of RA and HVN/HB Requests.
i. Questions about medical documentation/other questions. If an initial reviewer of an RA request finds issues with the submitted medical documentation that need to be resolved to complete the review, such as if the documentation is unclear, illegible, or if there are contradictions in the documentation, HRA will reach out to the Class Member and/or provider to attempt to resolve these issues in order to make a more fully informed determination.
ii. Decision to Grant RA Requested. If the decision is to grant the requested RA, HRA will issue a “Final Notice of Determination” (as defined in accordance with paragraph 63(c), infra) granting the RA request.
iii. Decisions to Deny RA Requests or offer Alternatives. Initial decisions based on medical documentation to deny requested RAs or to offer alternatives will be reviewed by a supervisor. The review will include confirmation that any outreach required by this paragraph has been conducted.
(a) If the supervisor disagrees with an initial decision to deny the requested RA or offer an alternative, HRA will issue a Final Notice of Determination granting the original RA request.
(b) If a supervisor agrees with the decision to deny the requested RA or offer an alternative, a supervisor who is empowered to change the RA decision will contact the Class Member by telephone to discuss the RA request and, if appropriate, alternative RAs or offer more time to provide additional supporting documentation. HRA will then issue the appropriate notice based on the information obtained by telephone. If that information confirms the initial decision, HRA will issue a Final Notice of Determination denying the RA request or granting an
- 19 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 21 of 52
alternative RA. If that information leads to a reversal of the initial decision, HRA will issue a Final Notice of Determination granting the RA request.
(c) When supervisors approve initial decisions to deny requested RAs or to offer alternatives and Class Members cannot be reached by telephone within five (5) business days or the Class Member has not reached out to the Agency or WeCARE, HRA will issue a Final Notice of Determination in accordance with the initial decision.
c. Reasonable Accommodation Final Notices of Determination and Appeal Rights. HRA will issue RA Final Notices of Determination with the determination on the RA request. The notice will include (i) the determination as to whether the RA was granted, denied, or an alternative was offered along with a clear statement explaining why an RA was denied or an alternative was offered; (ii) a list of any documents reviewed; (iii) if the RA has been granted, instructions for Class Members on how the RA will be implemented (e.g., if the RA is Priority Queuing what to do when arriving at a Job Center; if assistance in reading or completing forms is needed, how to get that help); (iv) what Class Members should do if a granted RA is not being implemented; (v) instructions on how to appeal HRA’s determination; and (vi) a telephone number for Class Members to call to discuss (i)-(vi) above. To the extent possible, the RA will also be communicated orally.
d. Appeals. Clients will have 30 days to appeal an RA determination of HRA or WeCARE. The RA will remain in effect during the 30-day period and pending the outcome of any appeal.
64. Termination of RAs. If HRA or WeCARE intend to stop providing an RA, HRA will issue a notice to the Class Member of this intention. This notice will include instructions on how to appeal HRA’s determination to
- 20 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 22 of 52
discontinue the RA. The Class Member will have 30 days to appeal HRA’s determination. The RA will continue to be provided during this period and pending the outcome of any appeal. The notice to the Class Member will include a statement to this effect. HRA may only initiate the termination of an RA if there is documented, new information that the Class Member no longer needs an RA. However, where an RA is granted for a fixed period of time the Class Member will receive notice in advance of its expiration and have the opportunity to submit documentation supporting the continuation of the RA. Where documentation is received the procedures in paragraph 63 will be followed; where no documentation is received the RA will expire if the outreach procedures in paragraph 62(b)(viii) have been followed.
65. System Deadlines. HRA and WeCARE will develop a mechanism to override certain system deadlines consistent with all legal requirements.
66. Client Telephone Access Related to RAs, RA Requests, and RA Complaints. At any time, a Class Member may inquire about the RA process; the status of a pending RA request, including whether all documentation has been submitted; report any changes in their own telephone numbers; discuss their RA needs; or make complaints about the RA process (e.g., that an RA has not been accepted, processed, or implemented) by calling his or her case worker, a supervisor, or a central number, which will be answered live during business hours. The Class Member contact will be recorded promptly (within 24 hours), and the Class Member will be provided an answer within a reasonable time defined as enough time to meet a deadline, or avert and/or abate an emergency. When appropriate, Class Members will be advised of fair hearing rights when they call to make such inquiries and complaints.
67. Client Services Screen. A Client Services Screen shall be accessible to client contact staff including staff at Job Centers, BEV, OCSE, and WeCARE which will include at a minimum the following information: pending and granted RAs, including HVN/HB status; the result of the most recent disability screen; current WeCARE status/track; Employability status;, and SSI status, if any.
- 21 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 23 of 52
WECARE PROVISIONS
WeCARE Reasonable Accommodation Determinations
68. RAs requested or identified at WeCARE will be provisionally granted and treated as ongoing RAs until a determination is made and notice will be provided to the Class Member pursuant to paragraph 61. RAs granted by WeCARE will be clearly communicated to the Class Member in writing, and to the extent possible, orally; and will be recorded in such a manner that they can be implemented agency-wide.
69. If a Class Member requests an RA at WeCARE and it is denied, the Class Member will be provided the opportunity to speak to a WeCARE supervisor who is empowered to change the RA decision. HRA will provide Final Notices of Determination to Class Members granted RAs at WeCARE. Final Notices of Determination for Class Members denied RAs at WeCARE or offered alternative RAs at WeCARE will explain appeal rights, including the right to keep an RA in place until the appeal period has terminated.
70. Final Notices of Determination for RA denials and offers of alternative RAs will include a clear statement explaining why an RA was denied or an alternative was offered. The determination will include a list of any documents reviewed.
71. WeCARE decision-makers who make RA determinations and who disagree with an RA identified by other individuals in the BPS assessment process will be required to articulate their reasoning in writing and this will be included in the BPS report offered to the Class Member pursuant to paragraph 82 infra.
72. The need for new RAs will be assessed and the need for RAs granted at WeCARE will be reassessed at Biopsychosocial (“BPS”) or Clinical Review Team (“CRT”) appointments and upon completion of Wellness Plans. Class Members undergoing reassessment will be given notice of the reassessment, including explanations of what documentation may be required and that they may receive assistance in obtaining this documentation. RAs may only be
- 22 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 24 of 52
terminated as a result of this reassessment if there is documented, new information that there is no longer a need for the RA.
73. WeCARE Vendors will assist WeCARE clients in applying for Access-aRide and will provide an exemption from in-office appointments while they apply for the service.
74. For Staten Island residents who cannot, for documented clinical reasons, take public transportation to their WeCARE appointments, HRA will provide transportation to the extent feasible. Staten Island Class Members determined to be unable to use the provided transportation for documented clinical reasons, will be exempted from attending WeCARE in person.
75. Submission of Documents. WeCARE clients will be able to submit documents by mail, fax, or email and will be given receipts for their submissions.
76. HRA will develop a mechanism at WeCARE Vendor sites to grant HVN/HB status or refer such cases for appropriate review.
WeCARE Evaluation/Biopsychosocial Assessments
77. When requested by Class Members or when Class Members are unable to obtain medical documentation, WeCARE will attempt to obtain releases from Class Members and assist them in obtaining medical documentation when needed by WeCARE in connection with WeCARE BPS or CRT evaluations, Wellness, Federal Disability Benefits applications, and RA (including HVN/HB) requests. WeCARE Vendors will inquire whether the Class Member needs assistance to obtain medical documentation when no such documentation is presented, assist in obtaining medical documentation when requested, and offer to do so when it appears Class Members may need assistance. Clients will not be infracted for being unable to provide medical documentation.
78. WeCARE physicians and other clinicians will review all medical documentation, including documentation from Class Members’ treating providers, and make medical documentation provided by the Class Member
- 23 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 25 of 52
part of the Class Member’s WeCARE record. The Class Member will be provided with a list of the medical documentation the clinicians considered in determining the Functional Capacity Outcome (“FCO”).
79. WeCARE physicians and other clinicians will consider medical documentation provided by the Class Member as a factor in determining the Class Member’s functional capacity, attributing weight to such documentation consistent with the SSA “treating physician rule,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, including the following factors set forth therein:
a. Examining vs. non-examining physician, type of specialty, and treatment relationship;
b. Length of treatment; c. Type or frequency of treatment; d. Detail and comprehensiveness of the documentation; e. Consistency with other records; f. Specialization; and g. Other factors, including the treating source’s understanding of
Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements. 80. As part of the BPS process, WeCARE will utilize the SSA’s sequential evaluation process to determine whether Class Members are potentially eligible for Federal Disability Benefits. As per SSA’s procedures; the sequential evaluation process will be conducted in a set order and Class Members who meet one of SSA’s listings, equal an SSA listing, cannot perform any past relevant work based on Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”), or cannot perform any type of work based on the medicalvocational guidelines, or “grid rules,” will be referred to the SSI track.
81. As part of the CRT process, the sequential process will also be utilized. If a Class Member is found to meet or equal an SSA listing for disability, the reviewing CRT clinician will refer the Class Member to the SSI track. If the Class Member does not meet or equal a listing, then the CRT clinician will
- 24 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 26 of 52
need to determine the RFC. If the RFC can be determined based on the Class Member’s WeCARE history, CRT review, and any documents a Class Member may bring in at the time of CRT, then the CRT clinician will continue to determine if a Class Member can perform any past relevant work or any type work. If the RFC cannot be determined, then the Class Member will be referred for a new BPS evaluation.
82. Class Members will be offered copies of their BPS reports.
Enhanced WeCARE Outreach 83. “Enhanced Outreach” will be conducted using specialized scripts for all
missed WeCARE appointments. The purpose of Enhanced Outreach is to assist Class Members in overcoming barriers to participating in WeCARE, including identifying whether a clinical condition or need for an RA affected the Class Member’s ability to attend the appointment, and to address any needs for RAs.
84. Components of Enhanced Outreach.
a. Enhanced Outreach will include the use of telephone calls; letters (where time permits); email where available; and, in limited circumstances, home visits to contact Class Members following missed appointments based on Client Contact Information; and additional Enhanced Outreach if the rescheduled appointment is also missed.
b. For the Vocational Rehabilitation Services (“VRS”) track, WeCARE will conduct five (5) Successful Instances of Outreach per cycle of engagement before an infraction is posted without outreach.
c. Class Members in VRS who have reached their limit of five (5) Successful Instances of Outreach as referenced in paragraph b above will be assessed to determine if they need additional Case Management Services and, if appropriate, a referral to CRT before any infraction is posted.
- 25 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 27 of 52
d. Class Members in the Wellness track will not be subject to any limit on Successful Instances of Outreach.
e. WeCARE Vendors will use of the “test of reason” to excuse absences when the absence appears to be related to known clinical conditions.
f. WeCARE Vendors will record all outreach conducted in a form that can be tracked electronically.
WeCARE Wellness Track
85. Wellness track clients will have the option to conduct follow-up appointments by telephone.
WeCARE Vocational Rehabilitation Services Track
86. For those Class Members 50 years of age or older, the DVE assessment will include an assessment of Class Members’ RFC to determine the likelihood of being found disabled under the SSA rules. If a Class Member is determined to be likely disabled pursuant to the SSA rules, he or she will be referred to the SSI track.
87. RAs found to be needed as a result of the DVE process will be provided to Class Members in all VRS activities and implemented and recorded as ongoing RAs as described in paragraph 57.
88. VRS participants will be assigned required hours not to exceed 35 per week. If reduced hours are appropriate consistent with the Class Member’s functional capacity as determined in the DVE and needed RAs, the number of assigned hours will be reduced to 30, 25, or 20 hours as appropriate.
89. VRS track clients will have the option to participate in a range of activities consistent with the activities available to fully employable clients pursuant to HRA’s Employment Plan consistent with Class Member preference and the results of the DVE. WeCARE Vendors will count job search activity hours as a work activity unless exempt. WeCARE will phase out WEP and replace it with other opportunities for Class Members on the VRS track.
- 26 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 28 of 52
Assisting Clients with SSI Applications 90. HRA will develop and implement standard protocols for WeCARE with
respect to handling Class Members in the WeCARE SSI track (i) who have an appointed representative and (ii) those who do not have an appointed representative, with the goal of facilitating successful Federal Disability Benefits applications and appeals as applicable. Case Management Services for Class Members on the SSI track will include coordination with representatives for those Class Members with outside representation for their Federal Disability Benefits applications and appeals. WeCARE will inquire whether Class Members in the SSI track have a representative. Neither HRA nor its Vendors will contact SSA with respect to a pending Federal Disability Benefit claim or appeal if a Class Member is known to be represented without the consent of such representative, other than to ascertain if an appeal has been filed.
91. Referral of Appeals. HRA will develop a contract with a Vendor to which Class Members who have been denied Federal Disability Benefits on appeal can be referred for assistance with the SSA Appeals Council review process.
92. HRA will develop a contract with Vendors to evaluate and assist appropriate HVN/HB clients to apply for Federal Disability Benefits.
93. HRA will also consider and investigate developing a contract with a provider other than the WeCARE Vendors to assist SSI track clients and/or HVN/HB clients who need assistance with SSA Appeals Council Reviews and federal court appeals.
94. Clients who are placed on the WeCARE SSI track but who are not eligible for Federal Disability Benefits due to immigration status will remain exempt but will not be called in to apply for Federal Disability Benefits.
WeCARE Re-Engagement
95. Consistent with Agency-wide efforts to minimize unnecessary appointments, HRA will develop a procedure by which unengaged Class Members who have been referred to WeCARE within the past 12 months can elect to
- 27 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 29 of 52
accept a direct referral to WeCARE, rather than being called in to the Job Center.
96. For unengaged Class Members with a prior WeCARE history, HRA will review current HRA and WeCARE policies regarding track placement with the goals of minimizing the need for unnecessary appointments and increasing the accuracy of track placement and incorporate the principles specified below in a procedure:
a. When, during re-engagement at WeCARE, a Class Member (a) claims his previous track assignment was not appropriate; (b) has a case that has been remanded for re-assessment following a Fair Hearing request; or (c) reports a change in medical and/or mental health status to HRA or WeCARE, the Class Member will receive a new BPS or CRT.
b. WeCARE clients will be told about the outcome of the BPS or CRT and given the opportunity to disagree with the FCO/track placement. If Class Members provide copies of any documents not reviewed at a BPS or CRT, those documents will be reviewed. WeCARE may change the FCO/track assignment if appropriate.
c. Track Placement Presumption. Where Class Members were referred to WeCARE within a year of a previous WeCARE activity, they will not be placed in a track with greater engagement requirements than the track from their previous assignment unless a WeCARE clinician explains the placement in writing, including a clinical justification that the Class Member’s functional capacity has improved in ways that would make the track requiring greater engagement appropriate.
97. Voluntary participation after infraction. WeCARE clients in VRS who are alleged to have infracted with WeCARE program requirements and are entitled to Conciliation may continue to voluntarily attend the program. If Conciliation is not successful or results in an appointment for a re-evaluation
- 28 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 30 of 52
of a Class Member’s FCO, the VRS participation would end with the scheduling of a BPS or CRT appointment.
WeCARE Case Management Provisions
98. HRA will assess the case management needs of Class Members at BPS, CRT, and at such other intervals as appropriate.
99. Case Management Services will be provided to all WeCARE clients. Case Management Services will be tailored to the Class Members’ individual needs as determined through assessments and interviews with Class Members. Case Management Services, including those listed in paragraph 101, will be set forth in a procedure.
100. Individual Case Managers. To the maximum extent feasible, Class Members will be assigned to an individual case manager. If teams of case managers are used to provide services for a cohort of Class Members, Class Members will be provided the names, contact numbers, and email addresses of the team members.
101. Focus. The focus of Case Management Services will be to assist Class Members to understand WeCARE program requirements, keep eligible cases active for Cash Assistance, and secure Federal Disability Benefits for those Class Members who are eligible. Case Management Services will include the services and interactions listed in Paragraphs (a) through (l) below as needed or appropriate for the individual Class Member.
a. Enhanced Outreach as described in Paragraphs 83 and 84 for missed WeCARE appointments, though Enhanced Outreach may be conducted by specialized WeCARE outreach workers rather than a Class Member’s case manager.
b. Explain to Class Members Functional Capacity Outcomes/WeCARE Tracks assigned to Class Members (VRS, Wellness, Wellness Plus, SSI, or Fully Employable Without Limitations) and explain program requirements per FCO/WeCARE track.
- 29 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 31 of 52
c. Provide Class Members with Notification of Work Requirement (“NOWR”) and explain Fair Hearing rights if Class Members disagree with determinations.
d. Clarify WeCARE program requirements for Class Members when necessary and assist Class Members with problem-solving regarding WeCARE program requirements.
e. Assist in the process to identify and secure RAs, including HVN/HB status, needed to comply with HRA and/or WeCARE requirements.
f. At any time in the WeCARE process Class Members may submit new medical documentation. Case Managers will review new medical documentation and, if indicated, refer Class Members to CRT when they have new or worsened clinical conditions and will consider the need for additional RAs and assist with securing needed RAs.
g. Assist in obtaining medical documentation when requested and offer to do so when it appears Class Members may need assistance.
h. Assist with completing forms, including HRA recertification mailer forms, when assistance is requested and offer to do so when it appears Class Members may need assistance based on observations or available information with respect to impairments, illiteracy, or other factors.
i. When meeting with Class Members will review NYCWAY records, remind Class Members of upcoming or missed HRA and WeCARE appointments, and address any anticipated needs or possible obstacles to compliance.
j. Provide referrals to community-based organizations for services as needed and appropriate.
k. Allow Class Members to communicate with WeCARE inperson, by email, and by phone. Case Managers will reply within a reasonable period of time not to exceed two (2)
- 30 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 32 of 52
business days if a message is left unless a shorter time frame is required to meet a deadline or avert and/or abate an emergency. l. Determine whether Class Members need or receive other services, such as home care services, and either direct them to those services or work with their contacts there to connect Class Members with needed services. 102. Those individuals identified as needing a higher level of Case Management Services due to anticipated difficulty in maintaining benefits or accessing HRA and Vendor services will receive enhanced Case Management Services designed to assist them in complying with HRA requirements to ensure case continuity, including proactively reviewing upcoming WeCARE and HRA appointments and other responsibilities and assessing and addressing any anticipated needs or possible obstacles to compliance.
PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNNECESSARY NEGATIVE CASE ACTIONS
103. Going forward, HRA and WeCARE will not implement any new procedures for utilizing the practice of Autoposting Negative Case Actions.
104. Reduction of Unnecessary Appointments. HRA and WeCARE will continue to minimize mandatory appointments for Class Members.
105. Appointment Reminders, Outreach, and Resolution Procedures. The steps described below are in addition to the outreach described in the WeCARE and Case Management Sections in paragraphs 83 through 84 and 98 through 102 above and will be included in an HRA procedure:
a. Pre-appointment reminders. HRA will conduct Robo-calls to provide reminders of application and recertification appointments and recertification mailer obligations to Class Members with phone numbers, as well as agreed-upon RA information. A special Robo-call script will be developed for the 6-month recertification mailer reminder calls.
- 31 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 33 of 52
b. Post-appointment reminders. i. Phone. Following missed recertification and application
appointments, HRA will conduct Robo-calls to advise Class Members to reschedule their appointments within five (5) days from the scheduled appointment. HRA will prevent the Notice of Decision Process from initiating until after the 5-day period expires. The Robo-calls will include agreed-upon RA information.
ii. Letter. Following missed application or recertification interview appointments, HRA will send Class Members letters to inform them of the missed appointments and instructions for rescheduling the appointments. The letter will include the Disability Insert.
106. Conference/Conciliation Procedures.
a. The Conciliation notice will advise Class Members that they may request an RA needed to participate in Conciliation and include a phone number to make such requests. HRA will confer with Plaintiffs on the revised Conciliation notice. Information provided by a Class Member when requesting an RA, including RAs needed to participate in Conciliation or Conferences, may be used as a basis for a good cause determination.
b. HRA’s Conciliation and Conference appointments will address disabilities and the need for RAs to comply with HRA requirements.
c. HRA will revise its Conciliation and Conference process to use a set of structured questions to guide discussion and to reveal a need for an RA.
d. When a participant raises a physical or mental impairment as a reason for the alleged infraction, HRA will grant the participant good cause and refer the participant to WeCARE.
- 32 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 34 of 52
e. Pre-Conciliation Outreach. HRA will provide Class Members with Pre-conciliation Outreach for non-WeCARE appointments for which Conciliation is available such as Job Center engagement appointments. Pre-conciliation Outreach will be conducted prior to issuance of a Conciliation Notice to Class Members who fail to comply with employment requirements and will include attempts to contact the Class Members by telephone and letter to attempt to resolve the infraction and address any barriers to compliance. If Pre-Conciliation Outreach is successful, the Class Member will not experience a related Negative Case Action.
f. Class members will be able to participate in Conference appointments by telephone, and a telephone number to request a telephone Conference will be listed in the appropriate notices.
107. “Pre-Notice of Decision Case Review” for Class Members. Before issuing a Notice of Decision pertaining to a Negative Case Action for Class Members HRA will:
a. conduct file reviews of Class Members’ cases to determine, to the extent evident from the case record, whether there were factual errors, including a failure to provide a pending or granted RA prior to the issuance of Notices of Decision regarding Negative Case Actions. If the review shows a factual error or that a failure to provide a pending, granted, or needed RA may have led to the Negative Case Action, no Notice of Decision will issue.
b. If the review does not avert the negative action, HRA will conduct outreach to determine whether the Negative Case Action can be averted or resolved.
108. Pre-Fair Hearing File Review. Prior to Fair Hearings, HRA will review cases to determine, to the extent evident from the case record, whether the failure to provide a pending or granted RA may have led to the Negative Case Action at issue. If the review shows that a failure to provide a pending, granted, or needed RA may have led to the Negative Case Action, HRA will
- 33 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 35 of 52
withdraw the Negative Case Action even if the Class Member does not appear at the fair hearing.
109. Treatment for Certain Vulnerable Cohorts
a. HVN/HB i. When a Class Member requests HVN/HB status (a) For Cash Assistance clients, HRA will record the request and schedule a home appointment with the client. While HRA is evaluating the request, the Class Member will be treated as HVN/HB.
(b) HRA will make a determination on the request for HVN/HB designation based on medical documentation. HRA will provide a written explanation to the Class Member explaining the HVN/HB determination process and how to provide medical documentation. At the initial home visit, the HRA worker will ask the Class Member for any medical documentation supporting their request for HVN/HB status. The worker will also ask whether the Class Member wants HRA’s assistance in gathering medical documentation from his or her health care provider. Clients who request HRA’s assistance will be asked to sign medical releases so that HRA can request medical documentation.
(c) HRA will issue a notice to the Class Member with the outcome of HRA’s determination on the request to be treated as HVN/HB. This notice will include instructions on how to appeal HRA’s determination. The Class Member will have 30 days to appeal HRA’s determination. Cash Assistance clients will be treated as HVN/HB during this 30-day period and pending the outcome of any appeal. The notice to the Class Member will include a statement to
- 34 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 36 of 52
this effect.
(d) If a class member refuses a home appointment, HRA will provide written notice to the individual that a home appointment was offered and refused. HRA will include in this notice instructions on how to comply with program requirements by mail, phone, or facsimile or any other means HRA designates when a face-to-face interview is not required by law.
(e) If HRA intends to stop treating the Class Member as HVN/HB, HRA will issue a notice to the Class Member of this intention. This notice will include instructions on how to appeal HRA’s determination to stop treating the Class Member as HVN/HB. The Class Member will have 30 days to appeal HRA’s determination. Clients will be treated as HVN/HB during this 30-day period and pending the outcome of any appeal. The notice to the Class Member will include a statement to this effect.
(f) Eligibility issues For SNAP-Only Cases will be handled by HRA via SNAP Access Alternatives. If SNAP Access Alternatives prove unsuccessful and the individual was previously coded HVN/HB, HRA will conduct a home visit to attempt to resolve the issue.
(g) HVN/HB Denied or Expired. For clients who are denied HVN/HB status or whose HVN/HB status has expired, HRA supervisors will review their cases before HRA schedules the first Job Center appointments following the HVN/HB denial or expiration. HRA will review those cases again for clients who fail to report to their Job Center appointments. HRA may refer clients whose requests for HVN/HB status have been denied or whose HVN/HB status has expired directly to WeCARE.
- 35 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 37 of 52
(h) HRA will assess the case management needs of HVN/HB clients at the initial visit and at such other intervals as appropriate. Case Management Services will be tailored to the client’s individual needs. Those individuals identified as needing a higher level of Case Management Services due to anticipated difficulty in maintaining benefits or accessing HRA services will receive enhanced Case Management Services designed to assist them in complying with HRA requirements to ensure case continuity. Case Management Services will be set forth in a procedure.
(i) Nothing in this section precludes HRA from integrating the HVN/HB determination process with the RA determination process described above in a manner that is consistent with these paragraphs.
b. Homeless Clients.
i. HRA will coordinate with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) that participate in the Department of Homeless Services’ street homelessness outreach project to provide HVN/HB status to clients of these programs. HRA will serve these clients at the CBO offices or other locations agreed upon by HRA, the client and the CBO. HRA will accept documentation from the CBOs indicating client eligibility for HVN/HB status and exemption from participation in work activities consistent with 18 NYCRR §385.2(d). HRA will conduct Escalating Outreach before rejecting an application or issuing a Negative Case Action against Street Homeless Outreach Program clients
c. Hospitalized Class Members. HRA will establish a procedure with respect to Class Members about whom a temporary hospitalization is reported to the Agency or WeCARE with the
- 36 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 38 of 52
goal of avoiding Negative Case Actions that may be related to a clinical condition or need for RAs.
COMMUNICATIONS PROVISIONS
110. HRA will take steps such that communications of the Agency and WeCARE with Class Members are effective and available in multiple formats to afford meaningful access to Agency and Vendor services, programs, and activities in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable regulations issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to that title.
111. In determining the format of communication to Class Members, HRA and WeCARE will give primary consideration to the format requested by the Class Member.
112. HRA will enhance and/or implement systems to enable Class Members to communicate effectively with the Agency and WeCARE via telephone, email, fax, and mail. HRA will consider using text messaging to the extent feasible and agreed to by clients. HRA will take the steps necessary to make its Website accessible to Class Members.
113. HRA will provide receipts or confirmation numbers to verify Class Member contact with the Agency and WeCARE including submission of documents and transactions related to case actions such as requests to reschedule appointments, for good cause, for Conferences, and requests related to emergencies.
114. HRA will enhance and/or implement systems to enable effective, real-time communication for deaf and hearing impaired Class Members with the Agency and WeCARE as follows:
a. For in-person appointments, sign language interpreters for the deaf and hearing impaired will be provided;
b. HRA will pilot a program to implement the use of video remote interpreting by which Job Centers and SNAP Centers will use video conferencing equipment to provide real-time sign
- 37 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 39 of 52
language interpreting services as provided in 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(d). Video remote interpreting may be used in place of inperson interpreters when agreed to by clients; and c. HRA will train Agency and Vendor staff with client contact on the methods used by the deaf and hearing impaired to communicate by telephone, including the telecommunications relay service and the video relay service. 115. HRA and WeCARE will respond on a case by case basis to requests for RAs from Class Members who are blind or visually impaired.
116. HRA will develop and implement effective procedures to enable Class Members to reschedule appointments with the Agency and WeCARE.
117. The HRA Infoline or another similar mechanism which permits effective telephone access to Class Members will have capacity added to enable Class Members to learn current case status, upcoming appointments, documentation requirements, pending Negative Case Actions, and RA request status.
118. HRA will develop a mechanism through which Class Members can reach staff during business hours to address case emergencies when those Class Members are unable to obtain timely assistance at their Job Centers or WeCARE.
119. HRA will maintain a telephone number by which Class Members can communicate complaints regarding requests for and implementation of RAs.
120. In conjunction with Plaintiffs’ counsel, HRA will devise standards and develop effective procedures for regularly auditing:
a. the “Rescheduling” Phone Numbers listed on HRA and Vendor notices to confirm that Class Members can get through on these numbers to reschedule appointments;
b. Class Members’ access to Infoline or another similar mechanism for information;
- 38 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 40 of 52
c. the mechanism in paragraph 118 by which Class Members can reach HRA workers and WeCARE;
d. provision of receipts or confirmation numbers as provided in paragraph 113; and
e. other communications between Class Members and HRA or Vendor staff.
121. HRA will report the results of the audits discussed in paragraph 120 to Plaintiffs’ counsel quarterly and will meet with Plaintiffs’ counsel after the issuance of each quarterly Communications Report to discuss performance.
122. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, unless the Parties agree upon a later deadline, as part of developing the Monitoring Protocol described in paragraphs 130 through 137, the Parties will negotiate in good faith to reach consensus on the standards, auditing methodologies, and reporting referenced in paragraph 120 above and will incorporate these into the Monitoring Protocol which will be filed with the Court and incorporated into the terms of this Stipulation by reference as provided in paragraph 130 below.
NOTICE PROVISIONS
123. Readability of Written Materials: Subject to state approval when applicable, HRA will revise its written materials as set forth below to improve readability.
a. Guidelines for Written Materials. Consistent with the recommendations of an Expert, HRA will consider the following Guidelines in revising those HRA-developed notices specified in paragraph 123(b): i. Written materials will have the lowest possible reading level, measured by the appropriate readability measure, that is consistent with content that must be included in the material to comply with any legal requirements;
- 39 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 41 of 52
ii. Use active sentences as much as possible and avoid use of the passive voice;
iii. Use short sentences and simple words as much as possible. When possible, select words likely to be familiar and easily recognizable;
iv. Use the first or second person whenever appropriate;
v. Avoid long paragraphs wherever possible; and
vi. Effectively use headings; bullets; typeface; and where possible, graphic layout, including pictures, symbols, and icons.
b. Priority for Readability Review and Revision. HRA will prioritize the review and revision of the following HRAdeveloped documents:
i. Notices of appointment;
ii. Notices that require a response from the Class Member;
iii. Notices that concern the denial, termination, reduction, increase, or issuance of a benefit or service;
iv. Notices that convey disability-related information to Class Members, such as concerning WeCARE and the RA process; and
v. Written materials that are most frequently provided to Class Members.
124. Timing for Implementing Readability Revisions. Consistent with the categories set forth in paragraph 123(b), the parties will develop a reasonable list of HRA-developed documents to be revised. HRA will confer with Plaintiffs to identify a reasonable number of documents from this list that will be revised within eighteen (18) months from the Effective Date. HRA will commence revising the identified documents as soon as practicable and provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with the revised documents referenced in paragraph 123(b) for review and comment on a rolling basis. Plaintiff’s counsel will provide any comments within fourteen (14) days. At
- 40 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 42 of 52
the end of eighteen (18) months the Parties will meet and confer to develop a schedule for revising the remaining documents on the list.
125. Inclusion of Disability Rights Information in Written Materials. With the help of an Expert, HRA will develop a Disability Insert to be included when issuing certain notices to Class Members. For notices that meet the criteria in paragraph 123(b), HRA will either include a Disability Insert or develop and include Notice of Disability Rights language. Such language may be developed with the assistance of an Expert and will notify Class Members of their rights under the ADA and how to request an RA. Notices that are accompanied by the Disability Insert will include a reference to the Disability Insert. Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to review and comment on the Disability Insert and Disability Rights language. Plaintiffs’ counsel will provide any comments within fourteen (14) days.
TRAINING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT
126. Disability Advisory Community Panel
a. HRA will form a Disability Advisory Community Panel (“Panel”), which is intended as a collaborative entity through which HRA can gather expertise, input, and feedback from disability community organizations and members of the disability community regarding policies, practices, and initiatives of the Agency.
b. The Panel will meet quarterly and include representatives from organizations that have an interest in, advocate for, and/or provide services to people with disabilities, as well as people with disabilities including HRA clients.
c. The Legal Aid Society will have an opportunity to propose two members of the panel, one of whom may be a non-attorney employee or contractor of The Legal Aid Society. Defendants will not unreasonably reject Plaintiffs’ proposed panel members.
d. The Panel will address emerging issues, challenges, and solutions related to disability and other access and functional
- 41 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 43 of 52
needs as they relate to HRA policy and the delivery of services to clients with disabilities.
127. Staff Training
a. HRA agrees to develop new ADA training curricula (“ADA Training”) for various levels of staff across the Agency as well as a Disability Evaluation training curricula for Agency and Vendor staff charged with evaluating disability and RA requests. Defendant will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with draft training materials for their review and comment. Plaintiffs’ counsel will provide any comments within fourteen (14) calendar days. If Plaintiffs’ counsel believe that Defendant’s failure to incorporate Plaintiffs’ counsel’s comments and recommendations constitutes a systemic failure to comply with the provisions of the Settlement, Plaintiffs may seek relief from the Court consistent with paragraphs 141 through 143. Defendant will seek input in developing training curricula from the Disability Advisory Community Panel, the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, the Executive Director for ADA Policy, and others with expertise in effectively working with and meeting the needs of people with disabilities.
b. The ADA Training will focus on specific Agency policies and procedures, as well as areas of cultural competence, disability awareness, and effective communication with people with disabilities.
c. Using the new ADA Training curricula HRA will conduct cross training throughout various units at HRA, most notably at the key points of entry and the programs most likely to serve people with disabilities.
d. Defendant will develop quality assurance mechanisms and reinforcement trainings to ensure that all HRA and Vendor staff has the skill set to serve disabled clients and that all appropriate HRA and Vendor staff has the skill set to evaluate disability and RA requests.
- 42 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 44 of 52
e. Defendant will also develop other methods of building the capacity of staff to effectively address the needs of people with disabilities through effective supervision and coaching. Defendants will develop supervisory trainings that will include coaching methods to assist front-line staff with difficult cases. A workgroup will be convened to explore the most effective training tools for ongoing support at all levels of the Agency.
128. Disability Awareness. HRA will use a variety of media to continue to publically affirm its commitment to serving clients with disabilities and to providing those clients with meaningful access to HRA’s benefits and services. HRA’s Executive Director of Disability Affairs, with input from the Disability Advisory Committee, will develop mechanisms to effectively explain disability-related barriers clients may experience in attempting to access HRA programs and services and the various types of RAs available to overcome these barriers.
129. Executive Director of Disability Affairs. HRA has developed a new position of Executive Director of Disability Affairs. The Executive Director will collaborate with HRA program areas to assess policies and procedures and coordinate with program areas to improve service delivery for persons with disabilities so that they have meaningful access to HRA programs. The Executive Director will also investigate complaints alleging noncompliance with the ADA and implement solutions.
MONITORING
130. The parties will jointly develop a protocol for monitoring the Defendants’ compliance with the terms of this Stipulation (“Monitoring Protocol”) within three (3) months of the Effective Date, which shall be submitted to the Court and deemed incorporated into this Stipulation.
131. The primary objective of the Monitoring Protocol will be to measure compliance with the goals of this Stipulation: to identify, process, and provide necessary RAs so that Class Members have meaningful access to HRA programs and services including those of WeCARE; to prevent Class Members from experiencing unnecessary Negative Case Actions; to protect
- 43 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 45 of 52
Class Members from disability-based discrimination; and to enhance the Defendants’ ability to promptly identify and take corrective actions with respect to any deficiencies in complying with the Stipulation.
132. The Monitoring Protocol will be primarily based on data available through HRA systems.
133. To the maximum extent practicable, the Monitoring Protocol will be developed such that it can also serve as an internal quality management tool for HRA.
134. In the event that the parties, after good faith negotiations, are unable to reach consensus on the Monitoring Protocol, the matter will be submitted to the Court for resolution.
135. Until the parties agree on a final Monitoring Protocol, the monitoring provisions negotiated in conjunction with the Stipulation so-ordered by the Court on September 19, 2014 (the “Interim Agreement”), will remain in effect unless the parties agree that a particular monitoring provision is no longer relevant.
136. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have reasonable access, upon reasonable notice, to additional information to confirm or supplement information provided pursuant to the Monitoring Protocol and Interim Agreement in order to confirm Defendants’ compliance with the terms of this Stipulation. Plaintiffs will request any additional information within a reasonable period before the expiration of this Stipulation.
137. The Monitoring Protocol will specify the monitoring methodologies, as well as the form, content, timing, and frequency of reporting. The initial report generated pursuant to the monitoring protocol cannot form the basis of a motion for enforcement or contempt. However, the parties will meet and confer within 30 days of production of the first Monitoring Report/s to discuss compliance.
- 44 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 46 of 52
JURISDICTION
138. The provisions of this Stipulation shall not take effect until the Effective Date. Defendant’s obligations under this Stipulation shall be in effect during the Effective Period.
139. Except for the remedies to which the Parties have previously agreed as set forth in the Stipulation entered on November 24, 2014 (Dkt. 270), all remedies sought in the Amended Complaint are limited to the provisions of this Stipulation, as well as monitoring compliance with provisions, including the communications monitoring, that the parties have agreed to negotiate in this Stipulation pursuant to paragraphs 130 through 137.
140. The jurisdiction of this Court over the provisions of this Stipulation shall end at the conclusion of forty-eight (48) months following the Effective Date, unless Plaintiffs move for and are granted an extension pursuant to paragraphs 144 through 147 of this Stipulation. When the Court’s jurisdiction ends, all rights and claims arising under the provisions of this Stipulation shall terminate; the provisions of this Stipulation shall be deemed satisfied; all claims arising in the Amended Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety; and no further relief in this action shall be sought or granted.
ENFORCEMENT
141. In the event of a motion by Plaintiffs for enforcement or contempt based upon Defendant’s alleged non-compliance with this Stipulation, Defendant shall be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of this Stipulation unless Plaintiffs establish that Defendant’s failures or omissions to comply with the provisions of this Stipulation were not minimal or isolated but were sufficiently significant or recurring as to be systemic. Non-systemic individual and isolated violations of this Stipulation shall not form a basis for a finding that Defendant has acted in contempt of this Stipulation or as a basis for a motion for enforcement.
- 45 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 47 of 52
142. During the Effective Period, if Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that Defendant has failed to comply, as defined in paragraph 141 above, with the provisions of this Stipulation, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify Defendant’s counsel in writing of the nature and specifics of the alleged failure to comply and shall specify the basis for such belief, including but not limited to any monitoring reports upon which such a belief is based. Such written notice shall be provided at least thirty (30) days before any motion is made for enforcement of this Stipulation or for contempt. Unless otherwise resolved, the Parties’ counsel shall meet within this thirty-day period following notice to Defendant’s counsel in an attempt to arrive at a resolution of the alleged failure to comply.
143. If no resolution is reached within thirty (30) days from the date of notice, and if the Parties have met pursuant to paragraph 142 above in an attempt to arrive at a resolution of the alleged failure to comply, Plaintiffs may move this Court for an order enforcing the provisions of this Stipulation and/or for contempt. No motion for contempt or enforcement shall be brought to remedy those violations that the Parties agree (a) have been cured or (b) will be cured pursuant to a plan agreed upon by the Parties. In the event that the Parties agree to a plan to cure an alleged violation and Plaintiffs believe that the violation has still not been cured, Plaintiffs must provide at least ten (10) days’ notice before any motion is made for enforcement of this Stipulation or for contempt.
EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF THE STIPULATION
144. Plaintiffs may move this Court for an order extending the jurisdiction of the Court over this Stipulation and shall make any such motion no later than thirty (30) days before the scheduled termination of this Court’s jurisdiction, unless another date is agreed upon by the Parties. The Court’s jurisdiction shall only be extended over the provision(s) of this Stipulation with which the Court finds Defendant has failed to comply, except that, if the Court determines that a provision or provisions with which Defendant has complied is/are interdependent with a provision or provisions with which
- 46 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 48 of 52
Defendant has failed to comply, the Court shall also, in its discretion, extend its jurisdiction over the interdependent provision(s). The standard for measuring Defendant’s compliance with the provisions of this Stipulation for the purposes of a motion to extend this Court’s jurisdiction is that set out in paragraph 141 above.
145. Any such extension(s) of the jurisdiction of this Court shall be for a period of not more than one (1) year from the date that the Court’s jurisdiction was otherwise scheduled to terminate, unless another date is agreed to by the Parties, except that the Court may extend its jurisdiction for a period greater than one (1) year for good cause shown.
146. Plaintiffs may also move for a further extension of the jurisdiction of the Court beyond any extension granted pursuant to a motion made in accordance with paragraph 144 of this Stipulation, but only after giving Defendant prior notice and an opportunity to address any alleged noncompliance. Such motion for a further extension of this Court’s jurisdiction shall also be made in accordance with paragraph 144 of this Stipulation, and any extension granted pursuant to such a motion shall be for a time period that accords with paragraph 145 of this Stipulation.
147. Prior to the expiration of any period of extended jurisdiction (extended pursuant to paragraphs 144 - 146 of this Stipulation), Plaintiffs may move for contempt or enforcement consistent with the provisions set forth in the “Enforcement” section above (paragraphs 141 through 143 of this Stipulation).
GENERAL PROVISIONS
148. Defendant agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable counsel fees and costs as though they are prevailing parties. The Parties agree to attempt to negotiate the amount of such counsel fees and costs. If they are unable to agree on an amount within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, Plaintiffs may submit an application for counsel fees and costs to the Court, and Defendant reserves the right to respond to such an application in a manner that is consistent with this paragraph.
- 47 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 49 of 52
149. The Parties’ Protective Order regarding confidential information, entered by the Court on September 28, 2005, shall remain in effect during the Effective Period of this Stipulation.
150. Nothing contained in this Stipulation shall be deemed to be a finding or an admission that Defendant has in any manner violated Plaintiffs’ rights as contained in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules, or regulations of the United States, the State of New York, or the City of New York.
151. This Stipulation shall not be admissible in, nor is it related to, any other proceeding.
152. In the event of any change in federal statute or regulation or state statute or regulation that any party believes changes his or her responsibilities pursuant to this Stipulation, such party shall so notify all other parties and the Parties shall attempt to come to an agreement as to any modifications of this Stipulation that are warranted by said changes in federal or state law. If, after thirty (30) days, the Parties have not been able to agree, the dispute shall be submitted to the Court by motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the party seeking to modify the Stipulation. Thirty (30) days after filing such motion, Defendant shall be permitted to implement the modification pending the Court’s decision on the motion unless the Court has ordered a stay of such implementation pending its decision or the Court permits Defendant to implement earlier. The filing by Plaintiffs of an appeal of an adverse decision shall not operate as a stay of Defendant’s right to implement the proposed modification without further order of the District Court or the Court of Appeals.
153. Without diminishing the right of Plaintiffs to seek enforcement of this Stipulation, HRA will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with a mechanism to notify the Agency in writing of complaints regarding the individual cases in which HRA allegedly violated the terms of this Stipulation. HRA will investigate the alleged incident(s), take any appropriate steps required to resolve the issue(s) concerning each individual case (including issuing benefits to eligible applicants and recipients, withdrawing inappropriate Negative Case Actions, and providing RAs as specified in this Stipulation),
- 48 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 50 of 52
and report the results of such investigation, including what steps, if any, were taken to resolve the issue(s), in writing to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Such report shall be provided within five (5) business days of receiving Plaintiffs’ counsel’s report of the alleged incident(s) or in time to meet a deadline or avert and/or abate an emergency.
154. No provision in this Settlement shall infringe upon any individual Class Member's right to request a fair hearing concerning that individual's Cash Assistance, SNAP, or Medicaid benefits, to seek judicial review of the fair hearing decision, or to appeal or challenge an RA determination.
155. All written notifications sent pursuant to this Stipulation and all other correspondence concerning this Stipulation shall be sent by electronic mail or facsimile to the following addresses or to such other address as the recipient named below shall specify by notice in writing:
To Plaintiffs’ counsel Kathleen M. Kelleher Susan E. Welber Kenneth R. Stephens The Legal Aid Society Law Reform Unit Civil Practice 199 Water Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10038 Fax: (212) 509-8941 Email: kkelleher@legal-aid.org sewelber@legal-aid.org KStephens@legal-aid.org
To Defendant’s counsel D. Alan Rosinus New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 arosinus@law.nyc.gov
- 49 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 51 of 52
Fax: (212) 788-0877 156. Any party may change its designated addressee(s) or address(es) by written
notice to the other parties. 157. This Stipulation is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors, and
their assigns.
- 50 -

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 281 Filed 03/11/15 Page 52 of 52

l)aled: March 10,2015 Ncw York, New York

SEYMOUR JAMES Attorney-in-Charge THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, Adriene Flolder
Attorney-in-Charge, Civi I Practice
Judith Goldiner Attorney-in-Charge, Civil Law Reform Unit Ken Stephens, Supervising Attorney, Civil Law Rsform Unit Susan E. Welber, Staff Attorney Attorneys for PlainlilTs 199 Water Street, 3td Floor
New York, NY 10038 (2t2) 577-3307
kkelleherØlesal-aid. orp

ZACHARY W. CAR'TNR Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 100 Church fitreet New York, J{ew York 10007 (212) 3s6-0877
nro s in usl¿Dl a r,v.n vo. so v

By lecn M. Kelleher

Sean M. Murphy Andrea Hood Sarah [,, Rothenberg MILBANK T.WEED HADLEY & MgCLOY I,LP
One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, New York 10005 srnurphy, Z.Ð m i I b¡lrt k. co rn Tel,: (212) 530-5000

L^ By:

1 1,1

Sean M, Murphy

Attorneys for Plaintffi

By: Jr. Corursel
AltorneyJbr Defendant

=-- So Ordered this

day of ._.'**_*.***,2015

Katherine B. lrorrest, United States District Court Judge - 51 -

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 294 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 291 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., and MICHELE N., COURTNEY B., LAURA S., EULA S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
- against -
VERNA EGGLESTON, 1 as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defondant.

USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:_ _ _ _ _ _ _....,..
DATE FILED:JUN 2 2 2015
05 CV 6920 (KBF)

~o~:m .JlJDGMENT APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge.
WHEREAS, this action was brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("this Action");
WHEREAS, by Decision and Order dated April l 9, 2006, the Court certified a class consisting of: "recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who have received or 'Nill receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily transferring their case to one of three 'hub centers' in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program" and a subclass within the main class of members "who (a) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (b) have a record of

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 25(d), Commissioner Steven Banks is automatically substituted
as a party for claims originally brought against Verna Eggleston, the former Commissioner of the Human Resources
Administration.

1111_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 294 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 291 Filed 06/19/15 Page 5 of 9
such an impairment, or (c) are regarded as having such an impairment," Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 235 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2006);
WHEREAS, by Decision and Order dated November 15, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff<>' motion to amend the Complaint and to amend the class definition to be "recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are or will be designated as participants in
the WeCARE program." Lovely H. v. Eggleston, 2006 WL 3333084 (Nov. 16, 2006, S.D.N.Y.)
WHEREAS, by Stipulation so ordered by this Court on February 3, 2010, the class definition was further amended to be: "recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who (1) are or will he designated as participants in the WeCARE program or (2) individuals who were part of a case that was designated as 'homebound' by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYC,WAY computer Action Code 19HC;"
WIIEREAS, by Stipulation so-ordered by this Court on February I, 2011, the class definition was further amended to be: "Individuals who meet one of the following three criteria: ( 1) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are, were, or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program or (2) individuals who were recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who were part of a case that was designated as 'homebound' by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code 19HC or (3) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of cash assistance and/or food stamps who have a physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law§ 292(21) and who request to be designated as 'homebound' by HRA;"
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2014, Steven Banks was appointed as the Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA");
2

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 294 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 291 Filed 06/19/15 Page 6 of 9
1t ~
WHEREAS, by Orders entered on October 31, 2014 and November 25, 201 {the Court found the Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement related to retroactive relief to class members to be fair, reasonable, and adequate;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant (collectively, "the Parties") have entered into a Stipulation and Order of Settlement ("Settlement Agreement") dated March 10, 2015, which, if approved by the Court, would dispose of the claims made in this Action by Plaintiffs against De fondant;
WHEREAS, by Order dated March 11, 2015, this Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and Class Notice in this Action;
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the Court granted the Parties' First Letter Motion for Extension of Time for Class Members to File Comments;
WHEREAS, notice to the Class Members was provided substantially in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Order Approving Notice in Class Action, entered on March 11, 2015, as modified by the Court's Memo Endorsed Order of May 19, 2015 granting the Parties' First Letter Motion for Extension of Time for Class Members to File Comments;
WHEREAS, notice to the federal, state, and territorial Attorneys General was provided on or about March 23, 2015 in accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1715, and judgment may therefore be entered on or after June 22, 2015;
WHEREAS, a Fairness Hearing on the Settlement Agreement has been duly held on June 22, 2015 before this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) to determine whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted by the members of the Class; and
3

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 294 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 291 Filed 06/19/15 Page 7 of 9

WHEREAS, the Court, having considered all matters submitted to it at the Fairness

Hearing, along with all prior submissions by the patiies regarding the Settlement Agreement, and

all matters submitted by any Attorney General on or before June 22, 2015, and otherwise having

determined the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement with respect

to the claims of members of the Class;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

l. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and personal

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and Defendant.

2. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

Action{2th~22, ~ Settlement and enters Final Judgment in the

2Q {

3. The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in

the best interests of the members of the Class. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement are

directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms and provisions.

4. The Settlement Agreement is procedurally fair, resulting from arm's-length

negotiations by the patiies for a period of sixteen months.

5. The Settlement Agreement is substantively fair and meets the criteria set fotih by

the Second Circuit in City <dDetroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974), because:

(a) the Settlement Agreement grants relief to all members of the Class without

subjecting them to the risks, complexity, duration, and expense of continuing litigation;

(b) the reaction of the Class to the Settlement Agreement has been

overwhelmingly favorable as there have been no objections to weigh against approval;

4

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 294 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 291 Filed 06/19115 Page 8 of 9
(c) the state of the proceedings, the number of dispositive and discovery motions briefed, the amount of discovery completed, and negotiations to date have enabled the parties to evaluate the nature and scope of the potential relief to the Class Members;
(d) the risks associated with establishing liability and entitlement to relief, and maintaining the Action through trial weigh in favor of the Settlement Agreement; and
(e) the Settlement Agreement is within the reasonable range of recovery given the best possible outcome, along with the risks associated with litigation, and it provides substantial benefits to members of the Class. Were this action to proceed to trial, the Class would be required to wait even longer for relief, and any such relief would not be guaranteed.
6. Notice was given substantially in accordance with the Settlement and the Court's Order Approving Notice in Class Action, entered on March 11, 2015, as modified by the Court's Memo Endorsed Order of May 19, 2015 granting the Parties' First Letter Motion for Extension of Time for Class Members to File Comments. In addition, in compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1715, Defendant provided notice of the proposed Settlement to all federal, state, and territorial Attorneys General on or about March 23, 2015. See Dkt. 280-83. Such notice provided the best notice practicable under the circumstances. Said notice provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and the matters set fo11h herein, including the Settlement Agreement, to all persons entitled to such notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Class Action Fairness Act, the Constitution of the United States, and any other applicable law. A full opportunity has been offered to the members of the Class and to federal, state, and territorial Attorneys General to object to the proposed Settlement Agreement and to participate in the hearing thereon, and it is hereby determined that all Class Members are bound by this judgment.
5
11111111_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 294 Filed 06/22/15 Page 6 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 291 Filed 06/19/15 Page 9 of 9

The Parties have stipulated to negotiate the amount of counsel fees and costs
1 "f@· pursuant to~ 148 of the Settlement and have also stipulated th.a.t, th_atl.i.ff-thRe pa;r,.t,iesIPfail to nre..a-ch~r_ ttt..~
agreement on an amount within 90 days of the Effective Date of lltio Qo4"1:1.:laintiffs may ~an application for counsel fees and costs to the Court.
~i1'.· This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Action to the extent set forth by the

provisions of~~[ 138-147 of the Settlement Agreement.

(§!; ~..

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment. Immediate entry

of Final Judgment by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED:
Dated: New York, New York
June---~ [ii-.- __ ,2015

JC- ~- -~ ~~--:- .----Katherine B. Forrest United States District Judge

6
1111 _ _ _ _ _. .

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 326 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LOVELY H., GLORIA Q., and MICHELE N.,
COURTNEY B., LAURA S., EULA S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
VERNA EGGLESTON, as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration,
Defendant.

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND DISBURSEMENTS
05 CV 6920 (KBF)

WHEREAS Plaintiffs commenced this action on or about August 3, 2005, by filing a class action Complaint against Defendant Vema Eggleston ("Defendant''), 1 sued exclusively in her official capacity as then-Commissioner of theNew York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA"), alleging, inter alia, that HRA, in connection with the implementation ofthe Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation and Employment ("WeCARE") program, violated state, federal, and local law by transferring the public assistance cases of the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated from their local Job Centers to one of three specialized centers (''WeCARE hubsn or "hubs");
WHEREAS Plaintiffs simultaneously moved for class certification and a preliminary injunction;
WHEREAS in a decision dated April19, 2006, the Court certified a class and appointed The Legal Aid Society and Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, LLP ("Milbank") as counsel for Class Plaintiffs ("Class Counsel"), and granted Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in part;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint dated December 11, 2006;

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 25(d)(l), Commissioner Steven Banks is automatically substituted as a party for claims originally brought against Vema Eggleston, sued exclusively in her official capacity as the former Commissioner of the Human Resources Administration.
1

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 326 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 7
', ,.
WHEREAS by Stipulation so-ordered by this Court on February 1, 2011, the class definition was amended to be:
Individuals who meet one of the following three criteria: (1) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients ofpublic assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are, were, or will be designated as participants in the WeCARE program; or (2) individuals who were recipients ofpublic assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who were part of a case that was designated as "homebound" by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code 19HC or (3) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of cash assistance and/or food stamps who have a physical, mental or medical impairment within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law § 292(21) and who request to be designated as "homebound" by HRA;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Defendant, the Commissioner ofHRA, (collectively, "the Parties") entered into a Stipulation submitted to the Court dated March 14, 2012, resolving, subject to approval by the New York State Office ofTemporary and Disability Assistance ("OTDA"), issues related to Plaintiffs' claims for benefits lost in connection with the implementation of the WeCARE huhs for Class Members with active Cash Assistance cases;
WHEREAS the Parties executed a Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement dated August 7, 2014 ("Partial Settlement Stipulation") that resolved Plaintiffs ' claims for retroactive Cash Assistance, SNAP, and Medicaid for Class Members with closed Cash Assistance cases;
WHEREAS by Stipulation so ~ordered by this Comt on September 19,2014, the Parties agreed to interim treatment of Class Members;
WHEREAS the Court subsequently held a fairness hearing regarding the Partial Settlement Stipulation on October 31 , 2014, and, by Order issued on that date, contingently found the Partial Settlement Stipulation to be fair, reasonable, and adequate;
WHEREAS by Order dated November 24, 2014, the Court approved the Partial Settlement Stipulation;
2

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 326 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 7

WHEREAS the Parties entered into a Stipulation and Order ofSettlement ·

("Stipulation and Order of Settlement") submitted to the Court dated March 10,2015, resolving

the injunctive relief portions of this litigation;

WHEREAS the Court subsequently held a fairness hearing regarding the

I

Stipulation and Order of Settlement on June 22, 2015, and, by Order issued on that date, found

' ~

I!

the Stipulation and Order of Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate;

I

WHEREAS paragraph 148 ofthe Stipulation and Order of Settlement provides that:

I

Defendant agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable counsel fees and costs as

l

though they are prevailing parties. The Parties agree to attempt to negotiate the amount
of such counsel fees and costs. If they are unable to agree on an amount within ninety (90) days ofthe Effective Date, Plaintiffs may submit an application for counsel fees and costs to the Court, and Defendant reserves the right to respond to such an application in a

i
I
I I

manner that is consistent with this paragraph.

'[

W.HEREAS the Parties have agreed to multiple extensions of the 90 day period

I

to negotiate attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; and

I

f

I~

WHEREAS Class Plaintiffs, Class Counsel and Defendant now seek to resolve

the issue of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements without further proceedings on terms and

conditions just and fair to all Parties; and

WHEREAS the Parties are entering into this Fee Stipulation solely for the purpose of settling the issue of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements and to avoid further litigation, and without Defendant admitting any fault or liability;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND ORDERED:

1.

The City ofNew York, on behalf of Defendant~ shall pay the gross sum of

six million, five hundred thousand dollars and no cents ($6,500,000.00) (the "Fee Payment") to

Class Counsel; and Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree to accept the Fee Payment in full

satisfaction of all claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements that have been or will be

incurred in connection with this Action against the City of New York and/or Defendant, incurred

at any time prior to the entry of this Fee Stipulation as "so ordered," including without limitation

all past, present and future officials, employees, departments, agencies, representatives, directors

3

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 326 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 7 ' '

and agents of either the City of New York or HRA, their successors and assigns and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and transferees, and each of

them ("City Entities or Individuals"). 2. The Fee Payments shall be made to Class Counsel in two separate checks

as follows:

a) $5,434,936.06 payable to The Legal Aid Society, and shall be delivered to The Legal Aid Society, at the following address:

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Attention: Judith Goldiner 199 Water Street, 3rd Floor
New York, N.Y. 10038

b) $1,065,063.94 payable to Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP,
and shall be delivered to the following address:
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP Attention: Sean M. Murphy 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005-1413

3. Class Counsel shall promptly execute and deliver to Defendant's attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, a signed release together with the tax identification number and substitute W-9 forms for Class Counsel. The payment set forth in paragraph 1 is subject to and conditioned on delivery of such documents to Defendant's undersigned attorney. Effective upon receipt of the Fee Payment, The Legal Aid Society and Milbank shall indemnify and hold the City, HRA and/or City Entities or Individuals harmless from any and all claims, losses, liabilities, fees and costs, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or conceming any claim by any named plaintiff or member of the plaintiffclass in this Action against the City, HRA and/or City Entities or Individuals for attorneys' fees, costs, and/or disbursements (a "Fee Claim"). Upon notice of any Fee Claim, the City shall promptly notify The Legal Aid Society and Milbank, which shall have the right to defend the Fee Claim and may resolve the Fee Claim, provided that The Legal Aid Society and Milbank deliver to the City a release from the plaintiff(s) asserting the Fee Claim in favor of the City, HRA and City Entities and Individuals discharging the City, HRA and City Entities and Individuals from any liability for attorneys' fees, costs, and/or

4

·,

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 326 Filed 01/26/18 Page 5 of 7

disbursements.

4. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree that any taxes, or interest or

penalties on taxes, on the payment specified in paragraph 1 of this Fee Stipulation shall be the

sole and complete responsibility of Class Counsel, and that Class Counsel shall have no claim,

right, or cause of action against Defendant, the City of New York or any City Entities or

Individuals on account of any and all such taxes, interest, or penalties. 5. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree that neither Defendant, the City

~

of New York, nor any City Entities or Individuals, shall be responsible for any liens of any kind (including, but not limited to, any and all workers' compensation, tax, or child support liens)

I

which may attach to the payment set forth in this Fee Stipulation. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel shall have no claim, right, or cause of action against Defendant, the City of New York, or any City Entities or Individuals, whether in their individual or official capacities, on account of such liens, and Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree that they will defend, indemnify, and

I
I
~
II
I

hold harmless Defendants, the City of New York, and all City Entities and Individuals, whether

f

in their individual or official capacities, for the satisfaction of any such liens.

6. In consideration of the payment of the Fee Payment, Class Plaintiffs and

Class Counsel, The Legal Aid Society and Milbank, on their own behalf and on behalf of their

respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, attorneys, successors, and assigns of

each of themselves and on behalf of future Class Plaintiffs hereby jointly and severally release

and forever discharge Defendant, the City of New York, and each and all City Entities and

Individuals, from any and all claims for past, present, or future attorneys' fees, costs, and

disbursements arising from or in connection with the above-captioned action incurred at any time

prior to the entry of this Fee Stipulation as "so ordered."

7. Nothing contained in this Fee Stipulation shall be deemed to be an

agreement or an admission by any of the Parties as to the reasonableness of the number of hours

or the hourly rates claimed by The Legal Aid Society, and/or Milbank as Class Counsel.

8. The agreement regarding payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and

disbursements set forth in this Fee Stipulation is solely for the purpose of settlement of Class

Plaintiffs' and Class Counsel's claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements and does not

reflect the positions of the Parties in any other judicial or administrative proceeding. Nothing

contained in this Fee Stipulation shall be deemed, implied, or construed to be a policy, custom,

5

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 326 Filed 01/26/18 Page 6 of 7
I
'

or procedure of Defendant, the City ofNew York, or any of their agencies, or of Class Plaintiffs or The Legal Aid Society, and/or Milbank as Class Counsel.
9. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed a waiver by plaintiffs' counsel of any claims to fees, costs, or disbursements for monitoring defendant's compliance with the Stipulation and Order of Settlement accruing or incurred after the date in which this Fee Stipulation is "so ordered," or a waiver by Defendants of any defense to any such application

which may be made. 10. This Fee Stipulation contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon
by the Patties regarding the payment by Defendant of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements in this action for all work performed, or costs incurred, prior to the entry of this Fee Stipulation as "so ordered." No oral or written agreement concerning attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements entered into prior to the execution of this Fee Stipulation, shall be deemed to exist, to bind the Parties, or to vary the terms and conditions set forth in this.Fee Stipulation.
11. The Parties to this Fee Stipulation have jointly participated in its drafting;

consequently, any ambiguity shall not be constmed for or against any party. 12. This Fee Stipulation is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors,

and their assigns. 13.

This Fee Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, and a signature

received by facsimile or email shall be deemed valid for all purposes.

Dated: New York, New York January25, 2018
Thomas B. Roberts
Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street, Room 2-110 New York, New York 10007 (212) 356-0872 ThRobert@law.nyc.gov

.~ ....... .. ..... -· ··-,_,

6

Case 1:05-cv-06920-KBF Document 326 Filed 01/26/18 Page 7 of 7

Kathleen M. Kelleher

Scan M. Murphy

Susan Welber

Andrea M. Hood

Kenneth Stephens

Sarah L. Rothenberg

Judith Goldiner

MILBANK TWEED HADLEY & McCLOY

THE LEGAL AID SOC !ETY

LLP

I99 Water Street

28 Liberty Street

New York, NY 10038

New York, NY l 0005

~~~~~1%-rsoc;T--~ ·---;:/~ (212)__:~?~·~300 c~:? B)',.;:' / ]_,:
\ .;/'" f ~-,.->' ''
·-.·-so ORDElrET5,

(212) 530~5000

B · y.

-+.S=j ----

--·-C--f-h----.--·'--f-'·:.l.~~..fk~.-.~.-···

Scnn M. Murphy, Partner

Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, LLP

this .) (, fl= .day of_:::T::::-:-~ 2018.

_ _____,_~ •~--====:::::::::.. . ··-····--·-·----·--
Honorable Katherine B. Forrest United States District Judge

 
 Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 1 of 38
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−06920−KBF

CLOSED,ECF

H. et al v. Eggleston

Date Filed: 08/03/2005

Assigned to: Judge Katherine B. Forrest

Date Terminated: 06/22/2015

Related Case: 1:12−cv−09162−KBF

Jury Demand: None

Cause: 42:12112 Americans with Disabilities Act − Employment Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights:

Discrimination

Americans with Disabilities − Other

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

Lovely H. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

represented by Carolyn Walker−Diallo NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (NYC) 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212)788−0868 Fax: (212))788−8877 Email: cwalker@law.nyc.gov TERMINATED: 12/12/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Mary Kelleher The Legal Aid Society (Civil Div. NYC) 199 Water Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10038 212 440−4275 Fax: 212 509−8941 Email: kkelleher@legal−aid.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Richard Stephens The Legal Aid Society (Civil Div. NYC) 199 Water Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10038 212−440−4257 Fax: 212−509−8761 Email: KStephens@legal−aid.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Miles Murphy Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 (212)−530−5000 Fax: (212)−822−5219 Email: smurphy@milbank.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Elliot Blum The Legal Aid Society (Civil Div. NYC) 199 Water Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10038 212−440−4220

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 2 of 38

Fax: 212−509−8753 Email: rblum@legal−aid.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Elizabeth Welber The Legal Aid Society (Brooklyn) 111 Livingston Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 422−2845 Email: sewelber@legal−aid.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gloria Q. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

represented by Carolyn Walker−Diallo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/12/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Mary Kelleher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Richard Stephens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Miles Murphy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Elliot Blum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Elizabeth Welber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michele N. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

represented by Carolyn Walker−Diallo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/12/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen Mary Kelleher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Richard Stephens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Miles Murphy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 3 of 38

Richard Elliot Blum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Elizabeth Welber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Courtney B.

represented by Kathleen Mary Kelleher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Miles Murphy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Richard Stephens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Elizabeth Welber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eula S. individually and on behalf of all others similary situated

represented by Kathleen Mary Kelleher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Miles Murphy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Richard Stephens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Elizabeth Welber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laura S.

represented by Kathleen Mary Kelleher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Miles Murphy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Richard Stephens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Elizabeth Welber (See above for address)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 4 of 38 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Verna Eggleston as Administrator/Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration.

represented by David Alan Rosinus , Jr. New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 356−0877 Fax: (212) 788−0877 Email: arosinus@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Anne Calhoun NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (NYC) 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212−356−0856 Fax: 212−356−1148 Email: mcalhoun@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Roberts The CIty of New York Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212−356−1000 Fax: 212−788−8877 Email: throbert@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Sweet NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (NYC) 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788−1171 Fax: (212) 788−8877 Email: esweet@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janice Casey Silverberg New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212 788−8119 Fax: (212) 788−0877 Email: jsilverb@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Michael Buhta NYC Law Department 100 Church Street Room 3−212 New York, NY 10007 (212)−356−0892 Fax: (212) 788−0874 Email: jbuhta@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 5 of 38

Jonathan L. Pines NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788−0933 Fax: (212) 788−0940 Email: jpines@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neil Anthony Giovanatti New York City Law Department 100 Church Street Room 2663 New York, NY 10007 (212)−356−0886 Fax: (212)−788−3770 Email: ngiovana@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/03/2005 08/03/2005 08/03/2005 08/03/2005 08/03/2005 08/05/2005 08/10/2005 08/10/2005
08/10/2005
08/11/2005
08/23/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Verna Eggleston. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N..(jbe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2005 (jeh, ). (Entered: 08/04/2005)
Case Designated ECF. (jbe, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (jbe, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Verna Eggleston. (jbe, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
2 ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, permitting plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis. (Signed by Judge Stephen C. Robinson on 8/3/05) (jbe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2005 (jeh, ). (Entered: 08/04/2005)
3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Verna Eggleston served on 8/4/2005, answer due 8/24/2005. Service was accepted by Nathan Solomon, Clerk. Document filed by Lovely H.. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth Richard Stephens on behalf of all plaintiffs (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
5 FILING ERROR − WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − FIRST MOTION to Certify Class. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 2# 2 Exhibit Ex. 4# 3 Exhibit Ex. 5# 4 Exhibit Ex. 6# 5 Exhibit Ex. 7)(Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 8/11/2005 (kg). (Entered: 08/10/2005)
6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: why an order should not be entered against defendant pursuant to Rule 65 of the FRCP as further set forth in said Order. Show Cause Hearing set for 8/23/2005 12:00 PM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Show Cause Response due by 8/11/2005. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/10/05) (db, ) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DOCUMENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Stephens to RE−FILE Document 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class. Use the document type Declaration in support (non−motion) found under the document list Other Answers. (kg) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
7 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 8/19/05 re: Application GRANTED. The proposed schedule is approved. The parties shall promptly inform the Court as to the amount of time expected to be required for presentation of evidence in connection with the preliminary injunction application. A hearing date will be set following such notification. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/22/05) Copies Faxed by Chambers.(db, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 6 of 38

08/23/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005 08/29/2005
08/30/2005 08/31/2005 08/31/2005 08/31/2005 09/12/2005 09/13/2005 09/19/2005 09/28/2005 10/11/2005
10/27/2005

08/24/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Deposition due by 10/14/2005. (db, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Mary Kelleher on behalf of all plaintiffs (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
9 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Endorsed Letter dated August 19, 2005, Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain August 22, 2005 served on Martha Calhoun, Assistant Corporation Counsel on August 26, 2005. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
10 INITIAL CONFERENCE ORDER:that an pretrial conference will be held in this case on 11/29/05, @4:30pm, in courtroom 1305, 40 Centre St., N.Y.C; that plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Preliminary Pre−Trial Order on each dfts within 10 calendar days following the date of this order; counsel for the parties confer preliminarily at least 21 days prior to the date set forth in paragraph 1 of this order to discuss the matters set forth in within. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/29/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
14 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Kathleen M. Kellher dated 8/29/05 re: to confirm that argument on the motion has been adjourned to 9/15/05 at 4:00 PM. ENDORSEMENT: The adjournment is confirmed. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/30/05) (kco, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
11 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Initial Conference Order dated August 29, 2005 served on Eggleston on August 31, 2005. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
12 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Memo Endorsed Letter of the parties dated August 29, 2005, signed by Judge Swain on August 30, 2005 served on Eggleston on August 31, 2005. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
13 NOTICE of appearance. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
15 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Silverberg, Janice) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Elliot Blum on behalf of all plaintiffs (Blum, Richard) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
17 STIPULATION AND ORDER that plaintiffs' motion for a temproary restraining order is resolved as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/19/05) (dle, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
18 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER; regarding procedures that shall govern the handling of confifidential information during the course of these proceedings. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/27/05) (djc, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
19 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Swain from Martha Calhoun dated 10/5/05: the modification of the briefing scheduleis approved. The preliminary injunction hearing will be held on 11/28/05, commencing at 9:30 am. The parties' attentionis directed to the undersigned's general Rules for Trial counsel, copies of which are available ont he court's web site or from the courtroom deputy. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/5/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
20 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 10/26/05 re: Counsel writes to request an enlargement of the discovery and briefing schedule as follows: defendants' opposition papers to be served on 11/15/05 and plaintiffs' reply papers to be served on 12/2/05; and request that the preliminary injunction hearing be adjourned. The request is granted. The hearing is adjourned from Nov. 28 to 12/13/05 at 9:30 a.m., as is the initial conference. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/26/05) (jco, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 7 of 38

11/01/2005 11/01/2005 11/15/2005 11/15/2005
11/18/2005
11/18/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005
11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005

21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of so−ordered letter served on Kathleen Kelleher on 10/27/2005. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Calhoun, Martha) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Martha Anne Calhoun on behalf of Verna Eggleston (Calhoun, Martha) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
23 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 11/10/05 re: granting dfts request to have until 11/18/05 to serve and file their opposition papers and plaintiffs have until 12/7/05 to serve and file their reply. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/11/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
24 STIPULATION; that dfts will refrain from performing any new involuntary transfers of the public assistance, Food Stamps, and/or Medicaid cases of recipients of public benefits from Job Enters to WeCare job centers through the date of the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, 12/13/05. Five business days before release or mailing, dft, will provide copies to counsel for plaintiffs of notices regarding any voluntary transfer of the public assistance, Food Stamps, and/or Medicaid cases of recipient of public benefits. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/11/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
25 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial. Referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/18/05) (db, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/18/2005 (db, ). (Entered: 11/18/2005)
26 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Swain from Martha Calhoun dated 11/17/05: granting deft permission to submit a 60 page memo of law in opposition to pntfs' motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification. (Signed by Judge Charles E. Stewart on 11/18/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
27 FIRST MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class. and in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
28 DECLARATION of Martha Calhoun in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Exhibit A)# 2 Exhibit (Exhibit B)# 3 Exhibit (Exhibit C)# 4 Exhibit (Exhibit D)# 5 Exhibit (Exhibit E)# 6 Exhibit (Exhibit F)# 7 Exhibit (Exhibit G)# 8 Exhibit (Exhibit H)# 9 Exhibit Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit (Exhibit J)# 11 Exhibit (Exhibit K)# 12 Exhibit (Exhibit L)# 13 Exhibit (Exhibit M)# 14 Exhibit (Exhibit N)# 15 Exhibit (Exhibit O)# 16 Exhibit (Exhibit P))(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
29 DECLARATION of Swati Desai in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (A)# 2 Exhibit (B))(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
30 DECLARATION of Sheldon Cantor in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (A))(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
31 DECLARATION of Barbara Ramirez Giove in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (1)# 2 # 3 Exhibit (3))(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
32 DECLARATION of Roberta Solomon in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (A))(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
33 DECLARATION of Frank R. Lipton, M.D. in Opposition re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
34 ORDER a status conference is scheduled for 11/22/05 at 11:00 a.m., in courtroom 20D (500 Pearl Street) (Signed by Judge Andrew J. Peck on 11/21/05) "Copies Faxed & ECF by Chambers"(jco, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 8 of 38

11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/29/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/13/2005
12/20/2005 12/21/2005

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/22/2005 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew J. Peck : Status Conference held on 11/22/2005. Disc. disputes resolved − see transcript. Parties to contact if disputes. (dle, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew J. Peck : Status Conference held on 11/22/2005. Disc. disputes resolved − see transcript. Parties to contact if disputes. (dle, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
35 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/22/05 before Judge Andrew J. Peck. (jbe, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
36 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Richard Faust in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
37 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Kathleen Kelleher in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
38 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Linda W. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
39 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Marliese A. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
40 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Minerva R. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
41 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Danielle A. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
42 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Shantel E. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A and B)(Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
43 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Phyllis F. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
44 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Keisha C. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
45 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Ruben R. in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
46 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Richard Blum in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKET CLERK: Hearing begun on 12/13/05 − provision of 11/11/05 stipulation extended on consent through 2/28/06. Plaintiff's reply papers due 12/22/05 and PI hearing scheduled for 1/27/06 at 9:30 a.m.. (sac, ) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew J. Peck : Status Telephone Conference held on 12/20/2005. (sac, ) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
47 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 12/13/05 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (lma, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 9 of 38

12/21/2005
01/04/2006 01/06/2006 01/09/2006 01/18/2006 01/30/2006
01/30/2006 01/30/2006 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 02/02/2006
02/14/2006
02/15/2006 02/15/2006 03/27/2006 04/18/2006
04/19/2006

48 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Richard Blum dated 12/20/05 re: a request for an adjournment to 1/6/2006 to submit plaintiff's reply papers. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/21/05) (kco, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
49 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 12/20/05 before Judge Andrew J. Peck. (es, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
50 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
51 ORDER that the Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 1/27/06 at 9:30 am is moved to 2/1/06, at 9:30 am. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/6/06) (cd, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Replies due by 1/30/2007. (js) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
52 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 1/27/06 re: granting the parties joint requests that they be allowed instead to present argument on the motions based on the papers that will have been submitted to the Court on these motions; additional relief granted as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/27/06) (pl, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
53 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Richard Faust (corrected typo 1/23/06) in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
54 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Amalia D. (signed Dec. 15, 2005) in Support re: 5 FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
55 ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE EXHIBITS TO BLUM DECLARATION IN HARD COPY, the reply declaration of Richard Blum is to be fld electronically, wihtout the exhibits thereto and the exhibits in hard copy with the Clerk of the Court. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/1/06) (cd, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Laura Taylor Swain : Oral Argument held on 2/1/2006 (pl, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
56 LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 2/2/06 re: dfts. write to advise the court that dfts will agree to the extension of the current Stipulation barring the involuntary transfer of public assistance cases to WeCare job Centers thru 3/31/06 as the Court has requested.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(pl, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
57 ORDER that the clerk is directed to docket and enter the letters from parties. (January 30, 2006 letter from Martha Calhoun to court; January 31, 2006 letter from Richard Blum to court). (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/14/06) (dle, ) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
58 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/2/2006 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (jar, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
59 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/2/2006 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (jar, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
60 LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Colhound dated 3/27/06 re: dfts requests that a decision be rendered on or before 4/21/06. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(pl, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
61 LETTER addressed to Hon. Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M.Kelleher dated 4/18/06 re: Client Declarations filed in support of plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and for class certification. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N..(rag, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
62 OPINION AND ORDER 93026 the Court hereby certifies a main class of plaintiffs consisting of receipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who have

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 10 of 38

04/25/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 05/04/2006 05/19/2006
05/22/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/24/2006 06/08/2006
06/23/2006 07/14/2006 07/31/2006 07/31/2006

received or will receive a notice from the New York City Human Resources Administration involuntarily tranferring their case to one of three hub centers in Manhattan, the Bronx or Brooklyn in connection with the WeCARE program. The plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby granted to the extent that defendant is hereby prohibited form reassigning class members' (and their associated persons') cases to the hub centers involuntarily. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/19/06) (jco, ) Modified on 4/20/2006 (ew, ). (Entered: 04/20/2006)
63 ORDER SCHEDULING AND INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 5/4/2006 at 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. (Signed by Judge Andrew J. Peck on 4/25/06) (sac, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
64 ORDER; amending cover sheet of 4/19/06 Opinion and Order. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/25/06) (pl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
65 ORDER SCHEDULING INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Pretrial Conference set for 5/4/2006 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. In Courtroom 20D. (Signed by Judge Andrew J. Peck on 4/25/06) (js, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew J. Peck : Status Conference held on 5/4/2006; next status conf set for 6/8 at 9:30 am; position letters 2 days before. (cd, ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
66 ORDER; that the provisions of the Court's 4/19/06, Order that are stated herein r are suspended pending the implementation of HRA's plan to close the WeCare hub centers and reassign WeCare designees to their respective neighborhood centers. Additional relief are as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/18/06) (pl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
67 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/4/06 before Judge Andrew J. Peck. (tro, ) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
68 LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Colhoun dated 5/3/06 re: closing of WeCare Job Centers. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(pl, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
69 LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 5/5/06 re: response to letter dated 5/3/06, from the City Dft's announcing its intention to close the WeCare hub centers.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.(pl, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
70 LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calohoun dated 5/11/06 re: response from counsel for plaintiff dated 5/5/06. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(pl, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck : Status Conference held on 6/8/2006. City will provide to plaintiffs' counsel by 6/23: case number, closing (or sanctions) code, person's name, address and telephone number. City and Plaintiffs to agree on codes that do not need follow−up. Plaintiffs'counsel to contact clients to gather infor re: what happenened thru 7/14. City to bring HRA substantive and/or computer person to future conferences. Status Conference set for 7/14/2006 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck − position letters 2 days before. (jar, ) Modified on 6/13/2006 (jar, ). (Entered: 06/12/2006)
71 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 6/8/2006 before Judge Andrew J. Peck. (aba, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew J. Peck : Status Conference held on 7/14/2006. Next status conference set for 8/2/06 at 9:30 a.m. − position letters by 7/26/06. Discovery cutoff by 8/31/06. (db, ) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
72 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Memo Endorsement Order Dated July 31, 2006, Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain served on Defendant on July 31, 2006. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
73 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 7/28/2006 re: Additionally, I write on behalf of the parties to request the following briefing schedule: plaintiffs will serve the motion to amend the

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 11 of 38

08/02/2006
08/03/2006 08/05/2006 08/05/2006 08/15/2006 08/16/2006 08/23/2006 08/25/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006
09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/22/2006
09/29/2006

complaint on or before August 4, 2006; defendant will file responsive papers in opposition on or before September 8, 2006; and plaintiffs will serve reply papers on or before September 22, 2006. Motions due by 8/4/2006. Responses due by 9/8/2006 Replies due by 9/22/2006. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted and the proposed schedule is approved. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/31/2006) (jmi, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew J. Peck : Status Conference held on 8/2/2006. Def. to produce computer runs discussed at conf. by 8/8. Also to produce "We Care" docs on rolling basis, for completion by 8/14. Parties to cooperate to schedule depos or use ints. Next status conf. scheduled for 8/16 at 9:30 a.m. (jco, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
74 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 7/14/06 before Judge Andrew J. Peck. (tro, ) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
75 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. Return Date set for 9/29/2006 10:00 AM. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/05/2006)
76 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. Return Date set for 9/29/2006 10:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9)(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/05/2006)
77 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 8/2/2006 before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. (jmi, ) Modified on 8/31/2006 (rag, ). (Entered: 08/15/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew J. Peck : Discovery Conference held on 8/16/2006. Papers to LTS 9/22 plntf, def opp 10/6, reply 10/13. Parties to contact if discovery disputes. (cd, ) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
78 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 8/2/06 before Judge Andrew J. Peck. (tro, ) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
79 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 8/16/2006 before Judge Andrew J. Peck. (jmi, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
80 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of order of Judge Swain memo−endorsing defendants' request for an extension served on plaintiffs on Sept. 8, 2006 by fax and email. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
81 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Emily Sweet dated 9/6/2006 re: requesting a 2−week extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/7/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 9/22/2006. Replies due by 10/6/2006. (lb, ) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
CASE NO LONGER REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. Reason: Discovery closed summary judgment motion due 9/22/06. (rag, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
82 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Swain from Kathleen Kelleher dated 9/20/06: granting joint request that deft be permitted to respond to plntf's motion to amend the complaint on or before 9/29/06, with plntf's reply due on 10/13/06; granting joint request for the parties tofile file briefs to the remedy on the preliminary injunction entered on 4/19/06; plntfs' are permitted a 3 week extension to 10/13/06, with deft filing responsive papers onor before 10/27/06 and plntfs' reply on or before 11/3/06. (Signed by Judge Gerard E. Lynch, Part I on 9/21/06) (cd, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
83 OPPOSITION BRIEF memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' motions to intervene, amend the complaint and amend the class definition. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 09/29/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 12 of 38

09/29/2006 10/11/2006
10/13/2006 10/26/2006 11/16/2006
11/21/2006 11/21/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006

84 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 83 Opposition Brief Declaration of Martha Calhoun, dated September 29, 2006, in support of defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motions to intervene, amend the complaint and amend the class definition. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
85 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 10/10/06 ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff's counsel shall serve on defense counsel and subject to the Court a precis, not exceeding 5 pages, of their anticpated partial summary judgment motion by 10/13/06. Defense counsel shall serve and submit a responsive precis, not exceeding 5 pages by 10/20/2006. The parties shall appear before the undersigned for a premotion conference on 10/26/2006 at 2:00 p.m. There will be no futher briefing of the remedy issue until further order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/10/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
86 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 75 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Action Complaint.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Rosenberg, Scott) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Laura Taylor Swain : Interim Pretrial Conference held on 10/26/2006. Motion to be filed by 11/21/06 − response by 12/15/06 and any reply by 12/22/06. (ae, ) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
87 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER # 93938: For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the plaintiffs' motions to amend the complaint, to intervene three additional named party plaintiffs and for an amendment of the class definition Class members Courtney B., Laura S. and Eula S. are granted permission to intervene as named plaintiffs. The main class definition is amended to be recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are or will be designated as participants in the WeCare program. Program. Plaintiffs shall serve and file an amended complaint no later than two weeks from the date of this order. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/15/06) (js, ) Modified on 11/17/2006 (rw, ). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
88 FILING ERROR − WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law). Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. Responses due by 12/15/2006 Return Date set for 1/8/2007 09:00 AM. (Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 11/28/2006 (kg, ). (Entered: 11/21/2006)
89 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N. Responses due by 12/15/2006 Return Date set for 1/8/2007 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1)(Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 11/28/2006 (kg). (Entered: 11/21/2006)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DOCUMENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Richard Stephens to RE−FILE Document 88 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law). Use the document type Memorandum of Law in support of motion found under the document list Responses and Replies. (kg) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Richard Stephens to RE−FILE Document 89 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. ERROR(S): Filing Error of Supporting Documents. Supporting Documents must be filed individually. Event Code located under Responses and Replies. (kg) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
90 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 89 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. Responses due by 12/15/2006 Return Date set for 1/8/2007 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1)(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
92 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 13 of 38

11/29/2006
11/29/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006
12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/15/2006 12/18/2006
12/18/2006 12/28/2006 12/28/2006
01/10/2007
01/11/2007 01/16/2007

93 DECLARATION of Kathleen Kelleher in Support re: 91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I)(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
94 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
95 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Endorsed Letter Signed by Hon. Laura Taylor Swain, December 8, 2006 served on Verna Eggleston on December 11, 2006. Document filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
96 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 12/8/2006 re: plaintiffs request an extension of time until 12/11/2006 to file their amended complaint; the parties request that defendant be permitted to answer the amended complaint on or before 2/2/2007; the parties also propose that they provide a status update on the progress of settlement discussions to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck by 2/16/2007. ENDORSEMENT: The requests are granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/8/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 2/16/2007. (lb, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/11/2006. Responses due by 2/2/2007 (rag, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
97 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint against Verna Eggleston.Document filed by Courtney B., Eula S., Laura S., Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Michele N.(jco, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of memo endorsed letter served on Kathleen Kelleher, Esq on 12/14/2006. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Calhoun, Martha) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
99 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 12/13/2006 re: requesting that defendant's time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary be extended from 12/15/2006 until 12/29/2006. In addition it is further requested that plaintiffs' time to reply be extended until 1/10/2006. ENDORSEMENT: The request is GRANTED. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/14/2006) Copies Faxed By Chambers(lb, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Responses due by 12/29/2006. Replies due by 1/10/2007. (lb, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of memo endorsed letter served on Kathleen Kelleher on 12/28/2006. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Calhoun, Martha) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
112 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Hon. Barbara S. Jones from Martha A. Calhoun dated 12/27/06 re: Extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment ENDORSEMENT: Applications granted. Defendant's time to respond is extended to 1/5/07. Plaintiffs' reply is due 1/17/07.. (Signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones, Part I on 12/28/06) (rag) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
101 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 1/4/07; re: The request is granted, defendants response to 91 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment due by 1/12/2007; Plaintiff's Reply due by 1/24/2007. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/10/07) (sac, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
102 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 10/27/06 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (tro, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
103 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Calhoun, Martha) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 14 of 38

01/18/2007
01/30/2007 01/30/2007 02/02/2007
02/02/2007 02/05/2007 02/14/2007 02/21/2007
03/01/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007
06/12/2007

104 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 1/16/07 re: It is respectfully requested that the Court accept filing of defendant's papers on January 16 and the plaintiffs be given until January 30, 2007 to submit their reply. ENDORSEMENT: The Request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/18/07) (js) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
105 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Lovely H., Eula S., Laura S., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
106 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 91 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Lovely H., Eula S., Laura S., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
107 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Emily Sweet dated 2/1/07 re: I'm writing to request an extension of time, from February 2 to February 14, 2007, to answer plaintiffs' amended complaint. ENDORSEMENT: The request is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/1/07) (js) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
Set Answer Due Date purs. to 107 Endorsed Letter, as to Verna Eggleston answer due on 2/14/2007. (js) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Feb. 2, 2007 order of Judge Swain served on Plaintiff on Feb. 2, 2007. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
109 ANSWER to Amended Complaint. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. Related document: 97 Amended Complaint filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S..(Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
110 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kellecher dated 2/16/07 re: The parties request that they be given until April 1, 2007 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/16/07) (js) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
111 AMENDED ANSWER to 97 Amended Complaint. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
114 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 3/30/07 re: counsel for dfts requests that the parties provide an update on the status of settlement discussions. The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/2/07) (dle) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/1/2007. (dle) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
113 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Judge Swain's April 2, 2007 order served on plaintiffs' counsel on April 2, 2007. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
115 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Letter from K. Kelleher to Hon. Laura Taylor Swain dated May 1, 2007 memo endorsed by the Court on May 1, 2007 served on Eggleston on 05/02/2007. Document filed by Lovely H., Courtney B., Eula S., Laura S., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
116 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 5/1/07 re: The parties request that they be given until June 8, 2007 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/1/07) (js) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
117 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 6/8/2007 re: to the parties Plaintiff and Defendant request until July 10, 2007 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. Status Report due by 7/10/2007. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/11/2007) (jmi) Modified on 6/14/2007 (KA). (Entered: 06/13/2007)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 15 of 38

06/15/2007 07/11/2007 07/16/2007 09/13/2007 09/14/2007 10/19/2007 10/25/2007 11/30/2007 01/10/2008
01/16/2008 01/22/2008

118 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of endorsement of letter dated 6/8/2007 served on Kathleen Kelleher counsel for plaintiffs on 6/14/2007. Service was made by Facsimile. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Calhoun, Martha) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
119 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 7/10/2007 re: request until 9/12/2007 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. Status Report due by 9/12/2007. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/10/2007) (jar) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of memo endorsement of July 10, 2007 letter served on plaintiff on July 11, 2006. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Sweet, Emily) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
121 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 9/11/07 re: all parties request that they be given until 10/17/2007 to provide a written update on the settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Mag. Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/13/07) (kco) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
122 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Memo Endorsed Letter from Kathleen Kelleher to Hon. Laura Taylor Swain, ordered September 13, 2007 served on Eggleston on September 14, 2007. Document filed by Lovely H., Courtney B., Eula S., Laura S., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
123 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 10/17/07 re: The parties request an adjournment of the status report (of settlement negotiations) deadline until 10/24/07. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. SO ORDERED. Status Report due by 10/24/2007. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/18/07) (db) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
124 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 9/11/07 re: a request that the parties be given until 11/29/2007 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. Status Report due by 11/29/2007. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/25/07) (kco) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
125 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Martha a. Calhoun dated 11/29/2007 re: request that the parties be given until 1/10/2008 to submit a written update of the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. Status Report due by 1/10/2008. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/29/2007) (jar) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
126 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 1/9/08 re: Pursuant to the Court's order of November 29, 2007, the parties were to provide this status update tomorrow, January 10, 2008. The parties will be in a position to provide a report on Monday, January 14, 2008 and request that the time for submission of this status report be extended to January 14, 2008. Both parties consent to this request and there have been no previous requests for extension of this deadline. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight (Part I Judge) on 1/10/08) Copies Mailed/Faxed to plaintiffs counsel.(js) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
127 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of January 10, 2008 Memo Endorsement of January 9, 2008 Letter from Kathleen Kelleher to Hon. Laura Taylor Swain served on Eggleston on 01/10/08. Document filed by Lovely H., Courtney B., Eula S., Laura S., Gloria Q., Michele N.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
128 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 1/14/2008 re: I write on behalf of the parties to provide a status update on the progress of settlement discussions in this matter. Request that the parties be given until February 27, 2008 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. SO ORDERED., ( Status Report due by 2/27/2008.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/22/2008) (jmi) (Entered: 01/22/2008)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 16 of 38

02/28/2008 03/13/2008 04/21/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 05/12/2008 05/30/2008 07/01/2008
07/17/2008 08/19/2008 09/17/2008

129 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 2/27/08 re: The parties request an extension of time to submit a status report of their settlement negotiations until 3/12/08. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. ( Status Report due by 3/12/2008.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/28/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
130 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 3/12/08 re: The parties request that they be given until 4/18/08 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. ( Status Report due by 4/18/2008.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/12/08) (tro) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
131 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 4/18/08 re: Accordingly, the parties request that the time for submission of this status report be extended to April 25, 2008. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/18/08) (js) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
132 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 4/25/08 re: It is requested on behalf of the parties to request that the Court grant an additional extension of two weeks for the parties to submit a written update on the status of settlement negotiations in this matter to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/28/08) (js) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 5/9/2008. (js) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
133 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 5/9/08 re: Request that the status of settlement deadline be extended to 5/30/08. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. SO ORDERED. (Status Report due by 5/30/2008.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/12/08) (db) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
134 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 5/30/2008 re: Requesting that the parties be given until June 30, 2008 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/30/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
135 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 6/30/08 re: Counsel writes on behalf of all the parties to report on the status of settlement discussions in this matter. The parties request that they be given until 7/16/08 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. ( Status Report due by 7/16/2008.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/30/08) (tro) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
136 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 7/16/08 re: Request that the parties have until 8/15/08 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Laura Taylor Swain and Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. SO ORDERED. (Status Report due by 8/15/2008.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/16/08) (db) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
137 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 8/15/08 re: counsel for the City requests that the parties be given until 9/12/08 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/19/08) (dle) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
138 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura T. Swain from Kathleen Kelleher dated 9/12/08 re: counsel for parties request that the Court grant an extension until 9/19/08 for the parties to submit a written update on the status of settlement. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/17/08) (dle) (Entered: 09/17/2008)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 17 of 38

09/23/2008 11/03/2008 11/17/2008 11/26/2008 12/22/2008 01/20/2009 02/23/2009 03/20/2009 04/06/2009 05/18/2009

139 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 9/19/08 re: Counsel write on behalf of the parties to report on the status of settlement discussions in this matter. Counsel requests that the parties have until 10/6/08 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/22/08) (tro) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
140 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 10/31/08 re: Counsel writes on behalf of the parties to report on the status of settlement discussions in this matter. Counsel requests that the parties be given until 11/14/08 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/31/08) (tro) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
141 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 11/14/08 re: It is requested on behalf of both parties that the parties be given until November 26, 2008 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. So Ordered. ( Status Report due by 11/26/2008.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/14/08) (js) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
142 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha A. Calhoun dated 11/25/08 re: Counsel writes on behalf of all the parties to report on the status of settlement discussions in this matter. The parties request that they have until 12/19/08 to provide a written update on the status settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/26/08) (tro) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
143 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 12/19/08 re: Counsel write on behalf of the parties to report on the status of settlement discussions in this matter. Counsel request that the parties be given until 1/16/09 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/22/08) (tro) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
144 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 1/16/09 re: Counsel requests that the parties be given until February 18, 2009 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/20/09) (mme) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
145 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Martha Calhoun dated 2/18/09 re: Request that the parties be given until 4/3/09 to provide a written update on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. ( Status Report due by 4/3/2009.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/23/09) (cd) (cd). (Entered: 02/23/2009)
146 ORDER In light of the ongoing settlement negotiations, the pending motion for partial summary judgment (docket entry no. 91) is hereby terminated, without prejudice to restoration upon he written request of either party. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/20/09) (mme) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
147 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 4/3/09 re: Counsel writes on behalf of parties in Lovely H. v. Eggleston to report on two issues. Counsel requests that the parties be given until 5/15/09 to report on the status of settlement negotiations to Judge Swain and Magistrate Judge Peck. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/3/09) (tro) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
148 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 5/15/09 re: Counsel writes on behalf of the parties regarding the status of settlement discussions. Counsel requests that they be granted until 6/3/09 to report back to the Court on the status of these negotiations. ENDORSEMENT: The request is granted. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/15/09) (tro) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 18 of 38

06/09/2009 07/14/2009 02/03/2010
02/03/2010 02/01/2011
11/16/2011 11/23/2011 11/23/2011 11/28/2011 12/12/2011

149 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 6/2/09 re: Request for a conference in regards to the status of settlement. ENDORSEMENT: A conference will be held on July 14, 2009, at 2:30 pm in courtroom 11C, if necessary. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 7/14/2009 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 11C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/9/09) (db) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Laura Taylor Swain: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 7/14/2009. (mro) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
150 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND CLASS DEFINITION NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED AS FOLLOWS: The class definition is hereby amended to be: recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who (1) are of will be designated as participants in the Wecare program or (2) individuals who were part of a case that was designed as homebound by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCWAY computer Action Code 19HC. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/3/2010) (jmi) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
151 LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 2/2/2010 re: The parties request that the enclosed "Stipulation to Amend Class Definition" dated 2/1/2010 be so−ordered. Document filed by Lovely H., Courtney B., Eula S., Laura S., Gloria Q., Michele N.(tro) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
152 STIPULATION AND ORDER: I. The class definition IS hereby amended to be: Individuals who meet one of the following three criteria: (1) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of public assistance, food stamps and/or Medicaid who are, were, or will he designated as participants in the WeCARE program or (2) individuals who were recipients of public assistance, food stampsand/or Medicaid who were part of a case that was designated as "homebound" by HRA and had that designation removed through the posting of an HRA NYCW A Y computer Action Code 19HC or (3) individuals who are, were, or will be recipients of cash assistance and/or food stamps who have a physical mental ormedical impairment within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law § 292(21) and who request to be designated as "homebound" by HRA. Paragraphs II and III further set forth the rules and definitions that shall be followed regarding the class. IV. The provisions set forth in paragraphs I and II of this Stipulation will become effective immediately upon the date this Stipulation is so−ordered by the Court. The provisions set forth in paragraph III of this Stipulation will become effective thirty days after the date this Stipulation is so−ordered by the Court. The provisions set forth in paragraph III of this Stipulation will terminate upon entry of a final judgment or settlement in this action or upon the agreement of the parties. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 2/1/11) (db) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
153 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Judge Laura Taylor Swain is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
154 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties appear on December 12, 2011 at 11 :00 a.m. in Courtroom 15A, United States District Court, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, for a status conference, and that the parties be prepared to address the status of the ongoing settlement discussions. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/22/2011) (lmb) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/12/2011 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 15A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (lmb) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
155 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John Michael Buhta on behalf of Verna Eggleston (Buhta, John) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
Minute Order Proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 12/12/2011. The next Status Conference in this action is set for 2/14/2012 at 01:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (jp) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 19 of 38

02/02/2012 02/14/2012 02/14/2012
02/14/2012 02/23/2012
03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012

156 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 2/1/2012 re: The parties will submit a case management plan and scheduling order before the conference with the Court on February 14, 2012. ENDORSEMENT: Submit by 2/8/2012 via Chambers email. Trial should be set for Sept. 2012. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/2/2012) (rjm) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 2/14/2012. Bench Trial set for 9/10/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. The next Status Conference in this action is set for 5/11/2012 at 04:00 PM. (jp) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
157 SCHEDULING ORDER: All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a US Magistrate Judge. Fact Discovery due by 6/8/2012. Expert Discovery due by 7/13/2012. Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/27/2012. Trial in this matter shall commence on 9/10/2012. Trial will not be before a jury. Trial is anticipated to take 5−10 days. Status Conference set for 5/11/2012 at 04:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Motions due by 3/15/2012. Responses due by 4/16/2012. Replies due by 4/30/2012. ENDORSEMENT: Further ordered: Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is due on 3/15/2012, with opposition thereto on 4/16/2012 and a reply due 4/30/2012. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/14/2012) (ab) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
158 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/14/2012) (ab) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
159 ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference is scheduled for March 19, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck in Courtroom 20D, 500 Pearl Street. Counsel attending the conference must have full settlement authority and their client(s) must be present at the conference, as must a representative of the client's insurance company where the decision to settle and/or amount of settlement must be approved by the insurance company. Counsel shall provide a confidential settlement memorandum to my chambers. The memorandum shall not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor provided to opposing counsel. The memorandum should explain the factual and legal background of the case as it impacts on settlement negotiations; the status of prior settlement discussions between the parties; and the party's settlement proposal (range). See Order. Settlement Conference set for 3/19/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 20D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck on 2/23/2012) (rdz) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
160 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S. Responses due by 4/16/2012 Return Date set for 5/11/2012 at 04:00 PM.(Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 3/19/2012 (db). (Entered: 03/16/2012)
161 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Declaration in Support. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S. Responses due by 4/16/2012 Return Date set for 5/11/2012 at 04:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Correspondence, # 2 Exhibit Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit Correspondence, # 4 Exhibit Table, # 5 Exhibit Table, # 6 Exhibit Table)(Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 3/19/2012 (db). (Entered: 03/16/2012)
162 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 161 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Declaration in Support., 160 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S. (Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 3/19/2012 (db). (Entered: 03/16/2012)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Richard Stephens to RE−FILE Document 160 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. Rule 56.1 Statement is found under the Event Type − Other Answers.

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 20 of 38

03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/19/2012 03/23/2012 03/27/2012 03/27/2012 03/27/2012
03/27/2012 04/03/2012
04/13/2012
04/18/2012

***REMINDER*** − First re−file Motion, then file and link any supporting documents. (db) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Richard Stephens to RE−FILE Document 161 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Declaration in Support. Use the event type Declaration in Support of Motion found under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (db) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Richard Stephens to RE−FILE Document 162 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion. ERROR(S): Document linked to filing error. (db) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck: Settlement Conference held on 3/19/2012. Parties to advise re settlement status by 3/22. (djc) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
163 CASE NO LONGER REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. I have closed the above reference for magistrate judge statistical purposes. Reason: Did Not Settle. (jab) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
164 SECOND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. Responses due by 4/16/2012 Return Date set for 5/11/2012 at 04:00 PM.(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
165 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
166 DECLARATION of Kenneth Stephens in Support re: 164 SECOND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 − O'Halloran letter 2/4/2005, # 2 Exhibit Ex 2 − Stipulation− 3/14/2012, # 3 Exhibit Ex 3 − Calhoun letter 12/7/2011, # 4 Exhibit Ex 4 − SSI Benefit Levels Chart 2012, # 5 Exhibit Ex 5 − Welfare Allowances − Singles and Families without Children, # 6 Exhibit Ex 6 − Welfare Allowances − Families with Children)(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
167 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 164 SECOND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
168 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth Stephens dated 3/29/2012 re: Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment calls into question whether New York State's Social Services Law § 106−b would violate the Supremacy and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution, if it were to be applied so as to bar plaintiffs who are former public assistance recipients from receiving compensation for the loss of cash assistance benefits due to the violation of their federally−protected rights solely because they are no longer receiving public assistance benefits. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this notice of constitutional question on the public docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/3/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
169 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Martha A. Calhoun dated 4/12/2012 re: As the Assistant Corporation Counsel representing defendant in the above−captioned action, I write to respectfully request the defendant's time to respond to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be extended two weeks, from April 16, 2012 to April 30, 2012 and that plaintiffs' time to reply be extended from April 30, 2012 to May 14, 2012. ENDORSEMENT: Opposition extended to April 30, 2012. Reply extended to May 14, 2012. ( Responses due by 4/30/2012, Replies due by 5/14/2012.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/13/2012) (djc) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
170 ORDER: The Status Conference in this action, currently scheduled for May 11, 2012 is hereby adjourned to June 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., ( Status Conference set for 6/5/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/18/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 21 of 38

04/27/2012 04/30/2012
04/30/2012
05/18/2012 05/29/2012 05/29/2012 05/30/2012 06/05/2012 06/06/2012 06/18/2012

171 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Won S. Shin dated 4/25/12 re: Counsel states that the State is currently reviewing plaintiffs' motion to determine whether it will intervene or otherwise submit a response. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this letter on the public docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/27/2012) (mro) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
172 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Martha A. Calhoun dated 4/27/2012 re: Counsel for defendant write to respectfully request that−−in view of the letter from Assistant Solicitor General Won S. Shin, dated April 25, 2012, indicating that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(c), the State anticipates filing any submission in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment by May 29, 2012 −−the defendant's time to submit opposition to plaintiffs' motion be correspondingly extended to May 29, 2012. Defendant's opposition is currently due April 30, 2012. It is further requested that plaintiffs' time to reply be extended from May 14, 2012 to June 19, 2012. This is the second request for an extension of time and plaintiffs' counsel has given their consent. ENDORSEMENT: All extensions granted. Status conference remains for June 5. So Ordered. ( Responses due by 5/29/2012, Replies due by 6/19/2012.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/27/2012) (js) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
173 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Martha A. Calhoun dated 4/27/2012 re: Counsel respectfully request that in view of the letter from Assistant Solicitor General Won S. Shin, dated 4/25/12, indicating that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(c), the State anticipates filing any submission in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment by 5/29/12 −− the defendant's time to submit opposition to plaintiffs' motion be correspondingly extended to 5/29/12. It is further requested that plaintiffs' time to reply be extended to 6/19/12. ENDORSEMENT: All extensions granted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/30/2012) (jfe) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
174 ORDER: The Status Conference in this action, currently scheduled for June 5, 2012, will be heard on the same date (6/5/2012) at 1:00 p.m. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 5/18/2012) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
175 COUNTER STATEMENT TO 165 Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Buhta, John) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
176 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 164 SECOND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Buhta, John) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
177 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Won S. Shin dated 5/29/2012 re: I write to advise the Court that, after careful consideration and review of the documents submitted in connection with this matter, the Office of the Attorney General has determined that it will not intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(c) at this time. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to place this letter on the public docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 5/30/2012) (djc) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 6/5/2012. (jp) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
178 SCHEDULING ORDER: As set forth at the status conference with the Court on June 5, 2012, the following schedule shall govern the remainder of this action: Motions due by 10/29/2012. Responses due by 11/5/2012 Fact Discovery due by 8/31/2012. Oral Argument set for 6/25/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Pretrial Order due by 11/6/2012. Bench Trial set for 11/13/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/06/2012) (ama) Modified on 6/14/2012 (ama). (Entered: 06/06/2012)
179 ORDER: The Oral Argument in this action, scheduled for Monday, June 25, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. will be heard on the same date (6/25/2012), at 9:00 a.m. SO ORDERED.( Oral Argument set for 6/25/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/18/2012) (ama) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 22 of 38

06/19/2012 06/19/2012 06/22/2012 06/28/2012 07/23/2012 07/25/2012 08/08/2012
08/08/2012
08/27/2012 08/29/2012 09/06/2012
09/14/2012

180 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 164 SECOND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Gross, William) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
181 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Gross, William) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
182 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from John Buhta dated 6/21/12 re: Counsel for the defendant requests an adjournment of the 6/25/12 oral argument. ENDORSEMENT: Adjourned until July 25, 2012 at 3:30 pm. ( Oral Argument set for 7/25/2012 at 03:30 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/22/2012) (mro) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
183 ORDER: The Oral Argument in this action, currently scheduled for July 25, 2012, will be heard on the same date (7/25/2012), at 9:30 a.m. (Oral Argument set for 7/25/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/28/2012) (djc) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
184 ORDER: At the oral argument scheduled for July 25, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., the parties should be prepared to address the arguments made in their respective briefs in support of and in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 164), as well as, in particular, the following as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 7/23/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Oral Argument held on 7/25/2012 re: 164 SECOND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S.. (jp) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
185 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: ARGUMENT held on 7/25/2012 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karen Gorlaski, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/4/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/13/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/13/2012.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
186 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a ARGUMENT proceeding held on 7/25/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
187 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference on August 29, 2012, at 5:15 p.m. Counsel for plaintiffs shall initiate the call to Chambers at (212) 805−0276, with counsel for all parties on the line. ( Status Conference set for 8/29/2012 at 05:15 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/27/2012) (ja) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Telephone Conference held on 8/29/2012. Letters due by 9/6/2012. (jp) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
188 Letter addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Martha A. Calhoun dated 9/6/2012 re: Counsel for Defendant writes that consistent with the Court's direction at the telephone conference held on August 29, 2012, I write on behalf of the parties to inform the Court that any additional submissions by the parties with respect to the issues raised by the Court in connection with plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment will be made on or before September 14, 2012. In the meantime, plaintiffs have made a settlement demand with respect to retroactive relief which defendant is considering. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(pl) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
189 SCHEDULING ORDER: Fact Discovery due by 10/31/2012. Expert Discovery due by 1/31/2013. All pretrial materials, including the Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/22/2013. Trial in this matter shall commence on 2/28/2013. Trial will not be before a jury. Trial is anticipated to take 5−10 days. Status Conference set for 10/2/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/14/2012) (djc) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 23 of 38

09/14/2012
09/19/2012 09/19/2012 10/02/2012 10/03/2012 11/08/2012
12/10/2012
12/12/2012 12/14/2012

190 Letter addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Martha A. Calhoun dated 9/14/2012 re: For the reasons set forth in defendant's Opposition Memo, applicable law requires that New York Social Services Law § 106−b must be applied to limit recovery to those plaintiffs currently eligible for the benefit. See generally Opposition Memo (Docket Entry #176). Neither a protected property interest, nor pre−emption by the ADA of the state law defining eligibility for the benefit should be applied to provide for recovery that is expressly contrary to state law. These arguments cannot be sidestepped by characterizing the relief plaintiffs seek as a metric. (djc) Modified on 9/14/2012 (djc). (Entered: 09/14/2012)
191 Letter addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth R. Stephens dated 9/14/2012 re: We therefore urge the Court to issue a ruling holding that SSL § 106 (b) does not apply to plaintiffs' claim for direct compensatory damages, thereby avoiding the constitutional questions, or, in the alternative, that the state statute cannot be applied so as to bar claims for damages as it is pre−empted by the Title II of the ADA, and doing so would also violate plaintiffs' due process rights. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.(lmb) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
192 MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 164 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. As discussed on the August 29, 2012, conference call with the parties, if the parties wish to stipulate as to liability for even one plaintiff, the Court will issue a ruling as to the question of damages. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 164. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/19/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 10/2/2012. The Trial in this action is set for 2/28/2012 at 09:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (jp) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
193 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions for summary judgment on the "hub issue" due by 11/9/2012. Responses due by 12/10/2012 Replies due by 12/19/2012. Status Conference set for 1/11/2013 at 04:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/2/2012) (cd) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
194 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 11/7/2012 re: I write on behalf of the parties in Lovely H. v. Eggleston to request an extension of the time on papers related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as well as a suspension of the current Scheduling Orders until December 7, 2012 at which time the parties intend to propose a new scheduling order. The current briefing schedule in the case required plaintiffs' moving papers on partial summary judgment motion to be submitted by November 9, 2012, with defendant's opposition due on December 10, 2012 and plaintiffs' Reply on December 19, 2012 Prior to the storm, counsel had been discussing means by which the motion might be settled or perhaps presented to the Court with a stipulated agreement. Those discussions will continue during this time on a parallel track and the results will be reflected in the proposed status letter and revised scheduling order. ENDORSEMENT: Submit a proposed schedule for all remaining dates (for the Court's consideration) by 12/7/2012. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/8/2012) (js) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
195 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Emily Sweet dated 12/7/2012 re: I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the office of Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for defendant New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") in the above−referenced matter. I write to update the Court on the status of the case and to request an extension of time to submit a proposed revised scheduling order to the Court. Plaintiffs do not oppose this request. ENDORSEMENT: Extension to submit proposed schedule extended to 1/11/2013. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/10/2012) (djc) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Hearing held on 12/12/2012. (jp) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
196 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from John Buhta dated 12/13/2012 re: Counsel for plaintiff writes that as discussed at yesterday's

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 24 of 38

12/17/2012
12/17/2012 12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 01/02/2013

conference, we write to update the Court on the status of providing identifying information for homebound class−members in the zip codes eligible for D−SNAP benefits. HRA has determined that it will be able to identify and provide identifying information for those class members who reside in the 12 DSNAP zip codes who are not currently in receipt of SNAP benefits (and therefore potentially eligible for D−SNAP benefits) by noon on Friday, December 14th. ENDORSEMENT: Post on docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/14/2012) (pl) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
197 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen M. Kelleher dated 12/16/2012 re: We are anxious to speak with defendant's counsel tomorrow to discuss the most expeditious way to reach out and complete applications for those individuals on the list who are interested in applying for D−SNAP. We recognize that there are time and resource constraints affecting HRA, but it is not realistic to expect that plaintiffs' counsel will be able to reach each of these households in the next thirty−six hours, interview them − which will require an interpreter in many cases − and then arrange for these individuals to submit an application that conforms with the present current program application rules. It appears the best solution would be for HRA to reach out to some or all of these individuals to help them complete an application. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs and defense counsel to confer on how best to resolve the above and report to the Court at 5:30pm (on a conference call with the Court) today. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/17/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
198 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from John Buhta dated 12/14/2012 re: Please find attached transcript of the proceedings before the Court on Wednesday, December 12, 2012. ENDORSEMENT: Clerk of Court to place this email on the docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/17/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
199 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 197 Endorsed Letter,,,, Declaration of John Buhta in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction (not yet filed). Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Buhta, John) Modified on 12/19/2012 (ka). (Entered: 12/18/2012)
200 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − OPPOSITION BRIEF Declaration of Roy A. Esnard in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (not yet filed). Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Sweet, Emily) Modified on 12/19/2012 (ka). (Entered: 12/18/2012)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney John Michael Buhta to RE−FILE Document 199 Opposition Brief. Use the event type Declaration in Opposition(non−motion) found under the event list Other Answers. (ka) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Emily Sweet to RE−FILE Document 200 Opposition Brief. Use the event type Declaration in Opposition(non−motion) found under the event list Other Answers. (ka) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
201 DECLARATION of John Buhta in Opposition. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Buhta, John) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
202 DECLARATION of Roy Esnard in Opposition. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Buhta, John) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Conference held on 12/19/2012. (jp) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
203 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for January 11, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. will be heard that same day (January 11) at 2:30 p.m. ( Status Conference set for 1/11/2013 at 02:30 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/2/2013) (mro) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 25 of 38

01/11/2013 01/11/2013 01/24/2013 01/30/2013 02/20/2013
03/18/2013 03/18/2013 03/22/2013

204 ORDER: Any Motion for partial summary judgment on the "hub issue" due by 2/22/2013. Response due by 3/22/2013, Reply due by 4/5/2013. As additionally set forth, if the parties are unable to agree to a joint letter (and schedule), they are to submit a letter on the discovery issues and schedule as discussed on the record at the referenced status conference by January 24, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., to which defendants are to respond by January 25, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/11/2013) (cd) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 1/11/2013. (jp) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
205 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Susan E. Welber dated 1/23/2013 re: Accordingly, to afford the parties the time needed to take a deposition if necessary, and/or reach agreement on a date proposal, the parties respectfully request more time to report to the Court on discovery issues and a proposed trial schedule. Plaintiffs request until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29 and defendant requests until 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/24/2013) (js) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
206 SCHEDULING ORDER: Fact Discovery due by 5/30/2013. Expert Discovery due by 8/15/2013. Status Conference set for 4/12/2013 at 03:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Pretrial Order due by 9/16/2013. Trial in this matter shall commence on September 23, 2013. Trial will not be before a jury. Trial is anticipated to take 5−10 days. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/30/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
207 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth R. Stephens dated 2/19/2013 re: Plaintiff's counsel writes behalf of the plaintiffs, with the consent of the defendants, to request a resetting of the scheduling of the plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion on the "hub issue." Since our appearance before your honor on January 11,2013, the parties have continued to seriously pursue settlement of the issues that would be the subject of the motion. Both sides believe that an extension is appropriate as these discussions are still very much worth pursuing. Both parties also agree that resetting the deadlines will not impact the trial schedule. We propose that the deadlines set forth in the Court's Order of January 11,2013 be reset as follows: Plaintiffs' Motion: Apri15, 2013 (from February 22, 2013); Defendants' Opposition: May 3, 2013 (from March 22,2013) ; Plaintiffs' Reply: May 17,2013 (from April 5, 2013).. ENDORSEMENT: Ordered. Granted. (The trial date remains, as you indicated.), ( Motions due by 4/5/2013, Responses due by 5/3/2013, Replies due by 5/17/2013.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/20/2013) (ago) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
208 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 1/11/2013 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jennifer Thun, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/11/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/22/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/20/2013.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
209 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 1/11/13 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
210 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth R. Stephens dated 3/21/2013 re: I write on behalf of the parties to apprise the Court that Plaintiffs and Defendant have reached a settlement on partial summary judgment relating back to the "hub center" issue that was addressed in Your Honor's Decision and Order dated September 19, 2012, Docket # 192. The agreement is to pay those with closed cases 50% of the amount that they would otherwise have received in retroactive benefits using the formulas reflected in the Stipulation dated March 14,2012 for open cases, that was attached to my declaration in support of the Plaintiffs'

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 26 of 38

04/08/2013
04/12/2013 04/15/2013 05/15/2013 05/15/2013 06/18/2013 06/27/2013 06/27/2013

Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket # 166, attached hereto for your reference. We will be submitting a Stipulation to this effect forthwith. ENDORSEMENT: Ordered. Post to docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 3/22/3013) (ago) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
211 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Emily Sweet dated 4/5/2013 re: I write on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant in the above−referenced matter regarding the parties' settlement of the "hub center" issue, On March 21, 2013, we informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement of the claims on partial summary judgment relating back to the "hub center" issue that was addressed in Your Honor's Decision and Order dated September 19, 2013 (Docket # 192) and that we would be submitting a stipulation to the Court forthwith. At this time, the parties are working out a number of technical issues relating to the stipulation. In the event that we are not able to submit a proposed settlement document to the Court for preliminary approval prior to April 12, 2013, we will update the Court as to the status of any outstanding technical issues at the conference that is scheduled for that date. ENDORSEMENT: Ordered. Post to docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/8/2013) (ago) Modified on 4/10/2013 (ago). (Entered: 04/08/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 4/12/2013. (jp) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
212 ORDER: The next status conference in this matter will be held on Thursday, June 27,2013, at 1:00 p.m. As set forth on the record at the status conference held in this matter on April 12, 2013, the parties should confer and attempt to come to agreement on the following topics prior to the June 27,2013 conference as further set forth herein. ( Status Conference set for 6/27/2013 at 01:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/15/2013) (ago) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
213 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 12/19/2012 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Martha Drevis, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/10/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/16/2013.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
214 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 12/19/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
215 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the status conference previously scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on June 27, 2013 shall take place at 9:30 a.m. on that same day. ( Status Conference set for 6/27/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/18/2013) (mro) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 6/27/2013. (jp) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
216 ORDER: As discussed at the status conference on June 27, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern the remainder of this case: 1. Defendant shall produce data to plaintiffs not later than August 5, 2013. 2. Plaintiffs shall serve any expert report not later than September 6, 2013. 3. Defendant shall serve any expert report not later than October 7, 2013. 4. Expert discovery shall close November 4, 2013. 5. Motions in limine shall be fully briefed not later than November 26, 2013. 6. The parties shall submit to the Court a joint pretrial order not later than November 26, 2013. If the parties elect to submit direct testimony via declaration, the joint pretrial order need not contain proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. 7. The parties shall exchange direct testimony declarations on December 2, 2013. The parties shall submit redline and clean versions of the direct testimony declarations to the Court not later than 4:00 p.m. on December 5, 2013. 8. The parties shall appear for a final pretrial conference on December 6, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. 9. Trial in this matter shall commence on December 9, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 27 of 38

08/30/2013
09/27/2013
09/27/2013
10/11/2013 10/15/2013 10/15/2013 11/08/2013 11/20/2013
11/20/2013
11/20/2013

proceedings in this case shall be bifurcated between liability and damages issues., ( Expert Discovery due by 11/4/2013., Motions due by 11/26/2013., Pretrial Order due by 11/26/2013.), ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/6/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/27/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
217 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine P. Forrest from Susan E. Welber dated 8/30/2013 re: Counsel writes on behalf of the parties in Lovely H. v. Eggleston, to respectfully request modifications to the discovery schedule ordered by the Court on June 27, 2013. Pursuant to the June 27 order, plaintiffs' expert reports were due on September 6, 2013, and any reports from the defendant were due on October 4. Under the proposed, new schedule, plaintiffs' expert reports are due on September 20 and defendant's expert reports are due on October 15, and the trial date and all other deadlines in the Court's June 27th order would remain the same. ENDORSEMENT: Ordered. Adjusted dates are fine. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/30/2013) (tn) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
218 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 12/12/2012 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Toni Stanley, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/21/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/31/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/30/2013.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
219 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 12/12/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
220 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Katherine B. Forrest dated October 11, 2013. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment (scheduling order and endorsed letter))(Buhta, John) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
221 ORDER granting 220 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Ordered: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/15/2013) (mro) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Expert Discovery due by 11/8/2013. (mro) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
222 ORDER: On November 7, 2013, a deposition dispute arose between the parties. The undersigned resolved the issue telephonically. The ruling may be found in the deposition transcript. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/08/2013) (ama) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
223 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 6/27/2013 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Bridget Lombardozzi, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/16/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/26/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/21/2014.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
224 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 6/27/2013 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
225 FIRST LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Joint Letter from Parties dated 11/20/2013 re: Joint Request re JPTO. Document filed by Courtney B.,

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 28 of 38

11/21/2013 11/22/2013
11/22/2013
11/22/2013 11/26/2013 11/26/2013 12/09/2013 12/11/2013 12/12/2013
12/16/2013 12/16/2013 01/22/2014

Verna Eggleston, Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S..(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
226 ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a conference call today, November 21, 2013, at 5:10 P.M. All parties shall call chambers (212−805−0139) from a single line at the time of the conference. ( Telephone Conference set for 11/21/2013 at 05:10 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/21/2013) (mro) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
227 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Martha A. Calhoun dated 11/21/13 re: Consistent with the Court's scheduling order, dated June 27, 2013 the parties are working to submit the joint pre−trial order on November 26, 2013, As set forth in the letter of Kathleen M. Kelleher, dated November 20, 2013, the parties respectfully request that with respect to Rule 3(A)(vi) of the Court's Individual Rules, the parties be permitted to limit the deposition designations on the spreadsheet to testimony that is in dispute. ENDORSEMENT: Ordered: Post to docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/21/2013) (mro) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
228 ORDER: that the parties shall notify the Court by 12/5/2013 who they plan on calling for live cross−examination. Deposition designations and exhibits to which there are objections shall be submitted at the same time as the parties' final pretrial materials; all other deposition designations and exhibits need only be submitted in advance of trial if the parties so desire. The parties need not submit two sets of exhibits; one set of exhibits is sufficient. The parties are reminded to test all electronic equipment prior to the start of trial; should the parties need permission to bring certain electronics, they shall submit proposed Orders to that effect in a timely fashion. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/22/2013) (tn) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
229 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Martha Calhoun dated 11/22/2013. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Buhta, John) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
230 ORDER granting 229 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Ordered: Starting trial on 12/13 and continuing 12/16 + 12/17 is fine. Other dates modified as set forth herein. Pretrial Order due by 12/9/2013. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/25/2013) (mro) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
231 ORDER: The Final Pretrial Conference previously scheduled for December 6, 2013 is hereby rescheduled to December 11, 2013 at 3:00 P.M. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/11/2013 at 03:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/25/2013) (mro) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
232 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 12/11/2013. (jp) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
233 ORDER: On December 11, 2013, a conference was held in the above−referenced matter. As discussed at that conference, the parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a telephonic conference on December 17, 2013 at 5:00 P.M. All parties shall call chambers (212−805−0139) from a single line at the time of the conference. The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to appear for a status conference on March 14, 2014 at 1:00 P.M. ( Status Conference set for 3/14/2014 at 01:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest., Telephone Conference set for 12/17/2013 at 05:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/12/2013) (mro) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
234 ORDER: The telephone conference previously scheduled for 5:00 P.M. on December 17, 2013 is hereby rescheduled to 11:30 A.M. that day. All parties shall call chambers (212−805−0139) from a single line at the time of the conference. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/16/2013) (mro) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 12/17/2013 at 11:30 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (mro) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
235 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 12/11/2013 before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Tara Jones, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 29 of 38

01/22/2014
02/10/2014 03/05/2014
03/07/2014 03/10/2014 04/08/2014 05/13/2014 05/16/2014 05/19/2014 05/30/2014 06/02/2014 06/27/2014 06/30/2014

Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/18/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/27/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/25/2014.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
236 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 12/11/13 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
237 ORDER: 3/14/2014 Conference reset for 3/13/2014 at 09:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/10/2014) (cd) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
238 ORDER: A status conference in the above−referenced matter is currently scheduled for March 13, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit a letter no later than March 7, 2014 providing the Court with a status update. The parties shall also indicate whether they believe the upcoming conference is necessary, and if so, what issues they plan to raise at that conference. (Status Conference set for 3/13/2014 at 09:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 3/5/2014) (tn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
239 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Joint Letter from Plaintiffs Counsel (Kelleher) And Defendant's Counsel (Calhoun) dated 03/07/2014 re: Response to Order of March 5, 2014 Regarding Case Status. Document filed by Lovely H..(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
240 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 239 Letter, filed by Lovely H. ENDORSEMENT: Ordered: Conference adjourned. Status update due 5/16/2014. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 3/7/2014) (tn) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
241 ORDER: To clarify the schedule in the above−referenced action, the status conference initially scheduled for Friday, April 11, 2014 is adjourned. Instead, a joint status update shall be submitted no later than May 16, 2014. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/8/2014) (tn) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
242 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Alan Rosinus, Jr on behalf of Verna Eggleston. (Rosinus, David) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
243 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kelleher, Kathleen on behalf of the parties dated 05/16/2014 re: Joint Status Letter. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S..(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
244 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 243 Letter filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S. ENDORSEMENT: Ordered: Report to the Court by letter on May 30, 2014, regarding "measures to which the parties have agreed". (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 5/19/2014) (tn) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
245 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kelleher, on behalf of parties dated May 30, 2014 re: 05 cv 6920 − Status. Document filed by Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S..(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
246 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 245 Letter filed by Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/2/2014) (tn) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
247 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Conference and Joint Status Letter addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from David Alan Rosinus, Jr. dated June 27, 2014. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Rosinus, David) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
248 ORDER granting 247 Letter Motion for Conference: Request granted. The parties are Ordered to appear for a status conference on July 25, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Status Conference set for 7/25/2014 at 11:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/30/2014) (tn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 30 of 38

07/10/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014 07/29/2014
08/05/2014 08/12/2014 08/13/2014 08/13/2014 08/14/2014 08/14/2014 08/15/2014
08/22/2014 08/25/2014 08/25/2014
08/27/2014

***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 249 Order. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (tn) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
249 ORDER: The status conference previously scheduled for 7/25/2014 is hereby ADJOURNED to 7/28/2014 at 03:30 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 7/25/2014) (tn) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 7/28/2014. (jp) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
250 ORDER: that the parties shall determine the date by which the CAFA notice shall be distributed; Notice to the class shall be submitted to the Court for approval not later than August 12, 2014; Notice to the class shall be disseminated not later than August 26, 2014; Status Conference set for 9/19/2014 at 03:30 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Fairness Hearing set for 10/31/2014 at 09:30 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 7/29/2014) (tn) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
251 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Susan Elizabeth Welber on behalf of Courtney B., Verna Eggleston, Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Welber, Susan) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
252 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth Stephens dated 08/12/2014. Document filed by Courtney B..(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
253 ORDER granting 252 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. ORDERED: Request granted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/13/2014) (ja) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
254 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − CONSENT MOTION to Approve Proposed Fairness Hearing Notice . Document filed by Lovely H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Fairness Hearing Notice)(Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 8/14/2014 (db). (Entered: 08/13/2014)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Richard Stephens to RE−FILE Document 254 CONSENT MOTION to Approve Proposed Fairness Hearing Notice . ERROR(S): No signature or s/. (db) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
255 FIRST MOTION to Approve Proposed Fairness Hearing Notice . Document filed by Lovely H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Fairness Hearing Notice)(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
256 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED FAIRNESS HEARING NOTICE. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered, this 15th day of August, 2014. Granting 255 Motion to Approve PROPOSED FAIRNESS HEARING NOTICE. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/15/2014) (rjm) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
257 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to mail class notice addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from David Alan Rosinus, Jr. dated August 22, 2014. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Rosinus, David) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
258 ORDER granting 257 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. ORDERED: Request granted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/25/2014) (ja) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
259 NOTICE of of Proposed Class Action Settlement Under 28 U.S.C. § 1715. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B: Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C: Proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) Notice, # 4 Exhibit D: Proposed Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement)(Rosinus, David) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
260 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement Under 28 U.S.C. § 1715 served on federal and state attorneys general on August 26, 2014. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Rosinus, David) (Entered: 08/27/2014)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 31 of 38

08/29/2014 09/02/2014 09/18/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014
10/24/2014 10/30/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014
10/31/2014

261 MOTION to Approve Proposed Modified Fairness Hearing Notice . Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Modified Fairness Hearing Notice, # 2 Exhibit B: Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement)(Rosinus, David) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
262 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 261 Motion to Approve modified fairness hearing notice. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of Sept., 2014. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/2/2014) (tro) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 9/18/2014. (jp) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
263 ORDER: A status conference was held in the above−referenced matter on September 19, 2014. The parties expressed that they hoped to present the Court with a settlement agreement on November 7, 2014. The parties shall report any change in their expectations at the fairness hearing scheduled on October 31, 2014. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/19/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
264 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED AS FOLLOWS: The parties agree to the following interim treatment of Class Members while Lovely H. settlement discussions proceed, which will be implemented as quickly as possible given MIS implementation issues. This Agreement will expire upon the court's entry of a global settlement. The parties will specify any provisions of this Agreement that will remain in place as part of any such global settlement as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/19/2014) (lmb) Modified on 9/25/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 09/22/2014)
265 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action served on retroactive relief class members on September 12, 2014. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (English version), # 2 Exhibit B: Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (Spanish version))(Rosinus, David) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
266 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Approve Partial Settlement . Document filed by Lovely H. (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Declaration in Support)(Stephens, Kenneth) Modified on 10/31/2014 (db). (Entered: 10/30/2014)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Kenneth Richard Stephens to RE−FILE Document 266 MOTION to Approve Partial Settlement . ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
267 MOTION to Approve Partial Settlement . Document filed by Lovely H..(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
268 DECLARATION of Kenneth Stephens in Support re: 267 MOTION to Approve Partial Settlement .. Document filed by Lovely H.. (Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
269 ORDER. A fairness hearing was held on October 31, 2014 regarding the partial settlement in the above−referenced matter. As set forth on the record, the Court contingently found the settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate. In accordance with the requirement in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the Court's approval is not effective until November 24, 2014, assuming no objections are received. If no objections are received by that date, the Court will post the Order on ECF and the settlement will become fully effective. If objections are received, the parties should immediately notify the Court. The parties reported that they expect to finalize a settlement agreement on the remaining portion of the case by December 18, 2014. The parties shall appear for a conference on Thursday, December 18, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (Status Conference set for 12/18/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/31/2014) (rjm) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Fairness Hearing held on 10/31/2014. (jp) (Entered: 11/03/2014)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 32 of 38

11/25/2014
12/18/2014 12/19/2014
01/21/2015 02/19/2015 02/19/2015 02/20/2015 02/25/2015 02/26/2015 02/27/2015 03/10/2015 03/11/2015

270 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT: WHEREAS the parties have conducted extensive, arms−length negotiations to resolve this closed case issue and desire now to enter into an agreement to also settle Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, without further proceedings and without any admission of fault or liability, as specified in this Stipulation and Order. It is hereby Stipulated and Agreed by and between the undersigned as further set forth in this Order. Held in escrow to 11/24/14. If no objections received by that date, this Agreement becomes fully effective on that date. Motions terminated: 267 MOTION to Approve Partial Settlement filed by Lovely H. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/31/2014) (tro) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 12/18/2014. (jp) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
271 ORDER: As set forth on the record, the Court hereby modifies the provision on attorney's fees in the Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement made effective on November 24, 2014. (Order 38, ECF No. 270.) The prior 45 day requirement for an application to recover costs and fees no longer applies. A different time frame will be set on or before February 9, 2015 and tied to a global settlement order, the Court's resolution on remaining issues, or a consent agreement to the same. The parties shall appear for a conference on Monday, February 9, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. If a settlement is not reached by that date, the Court will set a schedule for motion practice. SO ORDERED. ( Status Conference set for 2/9/2015 at 01:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/18/2014) (ama) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
272 ORDER: The conference previously scheduled for Monday, February 9, 2015 is hereby rescheduled for Friday, February 20, 2015 at 12:00 p.m., ( Status Conference set for 2/20/2015 at 12:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/21/2015) (lmb) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
273 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from All Parties dated 02/18/2015. Document filed by Courtney B., Verna Eggleston, Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S..(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
274 ORDER granting 273 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from All Parties dated 02/18/2015. Ordered. O.K... but... let's wrap it up! Conference adjourned to 2/26/15 at 1 pm. (Status Conference set for 2/26/2015 at 01:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/19/2015) (kko) Modified on 2/20/2015 (kko). (Entered: 02/19/2015)
275 ORDER: The conference scheduled for Thursday, February 26, 2015 is hereby RESCHEDULED to 10:00 a.m. that same day., ( Status Conference set for 2/26/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/20/2015) (lmb) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
276 ORDER: Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Court must RESCHEDULE the conference, previously scheduled for February 26, 2015, to Monday, March 2, 2015 at 10:30 a.m., ( Status Conference set for 3/2/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/25/2015) (lmb) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
277 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Asst. Corporation Counsel Jonathan Pines dated February 26, 2015. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Pines, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
278 ORDER granting 277 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Ordered. Great news! Conference adjourned to 3/11/15 at 4PM. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/27/2015) (kl) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
279 JOINT MOTION to Approve Notice in Class Action . Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Fairness Hearing Notice, # 2 Exhibit B: Proposed Order)(Rosinus, David) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
280 ORDER APPROVING NOTICE IN CLASS ACTION: granting 279 Motion to Approve Notice in Class Action. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Fairness

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 33 of 38

03/11/2015 03/11/2015 03/11/2015 03/23/2015
03/23/2015
05/18/2015 05/18/2015 05/19/2015 05/22/2015 06/15/2015 06/19/2015

Hearing Notice that is attached as Exhibit A to the parties' Motion for an Order Approving Notice in a Class Action, dated March 10, 2015, shall be displayed in Job Centers and WeCARE sites and posted on the respective web sites of the New York City Human Resources Administration and the Legal Aid Society from May 1, 2015 through June 1, 2015. 2. The Court finds that completion of this display and web posting of the Notice constitutes reasonable notice to class members who will be bound by the settlement of this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) & (e)(1). 3. Objections by class members will be considered if filed in writing at the address specified in the Notice on or before June 1, 2015, which date is twenty−one days before the fairness hearing that the Court is scheduling in paragraph 4 below pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ("the Fairness Hearing"), or, if the Court grants permission, if stated orally at the Fairness Hearing. Plaintiffs' counsel will make copies of each written objection received and will provide a copy to Defendant's counsel. 4. Plaintiffs' counsel shall also furnish the Court with copies of all written objections received, and counsel for the Parties may, if they so choose, furnish the Court with written submissions responding to any or all of those objections by June 15, 2015, which date shall be seven days before the Fairness Hearing. 5. The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing, to consider whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, on June 22, 2015 at 1 p.m. at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A, New York, New York 10007. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 3/11/2015) (lmb) Modified on 3/11/2015 (lmb). Modified on 3/11/2015 (lmb). (Entered: 03/11/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Fairness Hearing set for 6/22/2015 at 01:00 PM before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. (lmb) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
281 ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement (see attached) and preliminarily approves it, subject to the fairness hearing. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 3/11/2015) (tn) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Status Conference held on 3/11/2015. (jp) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
282 NOTICE of Proposed Class Action Settlement Under 28 U.S.C. § 1715. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B: Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C: Order Approving Notice in Class Action, # 4 Exhibit D: Proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) Notice, # 5 Exhibit E: Proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement)(Rosinus, David) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
283 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement Under 28 U.S.C. § 1715 served on federal and state attorneys general on March 20, 2015. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Rosinus, David) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
284 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Neil Anthony Giovanatti on behalf of Verna Eggleston. (Giovanatti, Neil) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
285 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time for Class Members to File Comments addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth Stephens dated May 18, 2015. Document filed by Lovely H..(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
286 ORDER granting 285 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Application granted. Modifications as set forth above accepted. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 5/19/2015) (lmb) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 287 Order. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (jp) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
287 FIRST LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth Stephens dated June 15,2015 re: No Objections to Proposed Settlement. Document filed by Lovely H..(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
288 DECLARATION of Jacquelyn Flaum showing compliance with Order entered on March 11, 2015 (Dkt. No. 280), as modified by Memo Endorsed Order dated May 19, 2015 (Dkt. No. 286). Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Giovanatti, Neil) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 34 of 38

06/19/2015 06/19/2015 06/19/2015 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 06/22/2015
06/22/2015 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 08/24/2015

289 DECLARATION of Anthony Wade showing compliance with Order entered on March 11, 2015 (Dkt. No. 280), as modified by Memo Endorsed Order dated May 19, 2015 (Dkt. No. 286). Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Giovanatti, Neil) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
290 DECLARATION of Julie Schaeffer showing compliance with Order entered on March 11, 2015 (Dkt. No. 280), as modified by Memo Endorsed Order dated May 19, 2015 (Dkt. No. 286). Document filed by Verna Eggleston. (Giovanatti, Neil) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
291 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Settlement Approval. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. Return Date set for 6/22/2015 at 01:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Kelleher, Kathleen) Modified on 6/22/2015 (db). (Entered: 06/19/2015)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Kathleen Mary Kelleher to RE−FILE Document 291 MOTION for Settlement Approval. ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
292 MOTION for Settlement Approval. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. Return Date set for 6/22/2015 at 01:00 PM.(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
293 DECLARATION of Kathleen M. Kelleher in Support re: 292 MOTION for Settlement Approval.. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
294 JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and Defendant. 2. The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and enters Final Judgment in the Action. 3. The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the members of the Class. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms and provisions. 4. The Settlement Agreement is procedurally fair, resulting from arm's−length negotiations by the parties for a period of sixteen months. 5. The Settlement Agreement is substantively fair and meets the criteria set forth by the Second Circuit in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974) as further set forth in this order. 7. The Parties have stipulated to negotiate the amount of counsel fees and costs pursuant to paragraph 148 of the Settlement and have also stipulated that, that if the parties fail to reach agreement on an amount within 90 days of the Effective Date as defined in paragraph of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs may submit an application for counsel fees and costs to the Court. 8.This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Action to the extent set forth by the provisions of paragraphs 138−147 of the Settlement Agreement. 9. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment. Immediate entry of Final Judgment by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/22/2015) (lmb) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (lmb) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
295 ORDER: On June 22, 2015, the Court approved the parties proposed settlement. Although the issue of attorneys fees remains open, it does not prevent the termination of this action. The parties have worked diligently for a full decade to reach this landmark agreement. At long last, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/22/2015) (ama) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Katherine B. Forrest: Fairness Hearing held on 6/22/2015. (jp) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
296 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Thomas B. Roberts on behalf of Verna Eggleston. (Roberts, Thomas) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 35 of 38

10/20/2015 10/22/2015
10/22/2015 01/20/2016 01/21/2016 04/20/2016 04/21/2016 04/21/2016
06/01/2016 06/02/2016

297 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT − Letter Requesting Extension of Certain Settlement Agreement Deadlines; Stipulation. Document filed by Courtney B., Verna Eggleston, Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulation requested to be So Ordered)(Welber, Susan) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
298 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amending the timeline in Paragraph 122. The parties agree to amend the timeline in paragraph 122 of the Settlement by striking the phrase: "Within 90 days of the Effective date" from Paragraph 122 of the Settlement, and substituting the phrase "On or before January 22, 2016" as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/21/2015) (lmb) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
299 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 297 Settlement Agreement, filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S., Verna Eggleston. ENDORSEMENT: Post on docket. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/21/2015) (lmb) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
300 SECOND LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated 01/20/2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Verna Eggleston, Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
301 ORDER granting 300 SECOND LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated 01/20/2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Verna Eggleston, Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/20/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
302 THIRD LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of One Deadline in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated 04/20/2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
303 ORDER granting 302 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/20/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
304 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amending Paragraph 130. The parties agree to amend the timeline in paragraph 130 of the Settlement by amending the phrase: "on or before April 22, 2016" to "on or before June 3, 2016" so that Paragraph 130 of the Settlement shall read: The parties will jointly develop a protocol for monitoring the Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Stipulation ("Monitoring Protocol") on or before June 3, 2016, which shall be submitted to the Court and deemed incorporated into this Stipulation. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/20/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
305 FOURTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated June 1, 2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
306 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amending Paragraph 130, The parties agree to amend the timeline in paragraph 130 of the Settlement by amending the phrase: "on or before June 3, 2016" to "on or before July 22, 2016" so that Paragraph 130 of the Settlement shall read:The parties will jointly develop a protocol for monitoring the Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Stipulation ("Monitoring Protocol") on or before July 22, 2016, which shall be submitted to the Court and deemed incorporated into this Stipulation. 2. Amending Paragraph 148,The parties agree to amend the timeline in paragraph 148 of the Settlement by amending the phrase: "on or before July 22, 2016" to "on or before October 21, 2016" so that paragraph 148 shall read: Defendant agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 36 of 38

07/20/2016 07/22/2016
10/19/2016 10/20/2016
10/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/21/2016 12/22/2016

counsel fees and costs as though they are prevailing parties. The Parties agree to attempt to negotiate the amount of such counsel fees and costs. If they are unable to agree on an amount on or before October 21, 2016, Plaintiffs may submit an application for counsel fees and costs to the Court, and Defendant reserves the right to respond to such an application in a manner that is consistent with this paragraph., Motions terminated: 305 FOURTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated June 1, 2016. filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/1/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
307 FIFTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated July 20, 2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
308 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amending Paragraph 130. The parties agree to amend the timeline in paragraph 130 of the Settlement by amending the phrase: "on or before July 22, 2016" to "on or before October 21, 2016" so that Paragraph 130 of the Settlement shall read: The parties will jointly develop a protocol for monitoring the Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Stipulation ("Monitoring Protocol") on or before October 21, 2016, which shall be submitted to the Court and deemed incorporated into this Stipulation. (As further set forth in this order.), Motions terminated: 307 FIFTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated July 20, 2016. filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 7/22/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
309 FIFTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated October 19, 2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
310 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED AS FOLLOWS: Amending Paragraph 130 & 148 of the Settlement, as further set for in the order. If they are unable to agree on an amount on or before March 31, 2017, Plaintiffs may submit an application for counsel fees and cost to the Court. (Motions terminated: 309 FIFTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated October 19, 2016. filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Gloria Q., Eula S., Michele N., Laura S.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 10/20/2016) (cla) Modified on 11/14/2016 (cla). (Entered: 10/20/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 3/31/2017. (cla) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
311 SEVENTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated December 20, 2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation dated December 20, 2016)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
313 ORDER granting 311 SEVENTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated December 20, 2016. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/21/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
312 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS: The Stipulation of Settlement is amended as further set out in the order. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 12/21/2016) (cla) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 37 of 38

02/17/2017 02/21/2017 03/01/2017 03/01/2017
05/11/2017 05/12/2017
08/23/2017 08/24/2017

314 EIGHTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated February 17, 2017. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
315 STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amending Paragraph 130. The parties agree to amend the timeline in paragraph 130 of the Settlement by amending the phrase: "on or before February 21, 2017" to "on or before February 28, 2017" so that Paragraph 130 of the Settlement shall read: The parties will jointly develop a protocol for monitoring the Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Stipulation ("Monitoring Protocol") on or before February 28, 2017, which shall be submitted to the Court and deemed incorporated into this Stipulation. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 2/21/2017) (cla) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
316 LETTER addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated 03/01/2017 re: Monitoring Stipulation. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Monitoring Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
317 STIPULATION AND ORDER: The obligations in this stipulation shall terminate and end at the same time the jurisdiction of the Court shall terminate. HRA shall provide all reports described herein to Plaintiffs within sixty (60) days of the last day of the applicable reporting period. If HRA is unable to deliver a report described herein to Plaintiffs within sixty (60) days of the last day of the applicable reporting period, HRA shall inform Plaintiffs that the issuance of the report is delayed and provide Plaintiffs with a date that the report will be produced to Plaintiffs. The obligations set forth in this stipulation satisfy all of HRA's monitoring and The obligations set forth in this stipulation satisfy all of HRA's monitoring and communication obligations as set forth in paragraphs 120−122 and 130−135 of the Final Settlement. In the event of a dispute as to compliance with this stipulation, the provisions of 141−143 of the Final Settlement shall apply. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 3/1/2017) (cla) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
318 NINTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated May 11, 2017. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
319 STIPULATION. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amending Paragraph 148 The parties agree to amend the timeline in paragraph 148 of the Settlement by amending the phrase: "on or before May 31, 2017" so that paragraph 148 shall read: Defendant agrees that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable counsel fees and costs as though they are prevailing parties. The Parties agree to attempt to negotiate the amount of such counsel fees and costs. If they are unable to agree on an amount on or before August 31, 2017, Plaintiffs may submit an application for counsel fees and costs to the Court, and Defendant reserves the right to respond to such an application in a manner that is consistent with this paragraph. Motions terminated: 318 NINTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines in Settlement addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher On Behalf of the Parties dated May 11, 2017. Document filed by Courtney B., Lovely H., Michele N., Gloria Q., Eula S., Laura S. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 5/12/2017) (rjm) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
320 TENTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher, On Behalf of the Parties dated 08/23/2017. Document filed by Lovely H.. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kelleher, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
321 ORDER granting 320 TENTH LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Of Certain Deadlines addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kathleen Kelleher, On Behalf of the Parties dated 08/23/2017. Document filed by Lovely H. Ordered. OK. I'll grant this extension but this is the final extension. Any motion for fees (if there is no settlement) shall be filed not later than Nov. 27, 2017; any opposition shall be filed not

Case: 1:05-cv-6920 As of: 07/27/2018 10:24 PM EDT 38 of 38

08/24/2017 11/08/2017
11/09/2017 01/09/2018 01/10/2018 01/26/2018

later than Dec. 22, 2017; any reply by Jan. 8, 2018. (Motions due by 11/27/2017). (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 8/24/2017) (rjm) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 12/22/2017. Replies due by 1/8/2018. (rjm) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
322 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to move for attorney's fees and expenses addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Thomas B. Roberts dated November 8, 2017. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(Roberts, Thomas) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
323 ORDER granting 322 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. So Ordered. (But at some point we have to come to a close on this...) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/9/17) (yv) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
324 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Stipulation Settling Attorneys' Fees addressed to Judge Katherine B. Forrest from Kenneth Stephens dated 01/09/2018. Document filed by Lovely H..(Stephens, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
325 ORDER: granting 324 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/10/2018) (ap) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
326 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND DISBURSEMENTS: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND ORDERED: The City of New York, on behalf of Defendant, shall pay the gross sum of six million, five hundred thousand dollars and no cents ($6,500,000.00) (the "Fee Payment") to Class Counsel; and Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree to accept the Fee Payment in full satisfaction of all claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements that have been or will be incurred in connection with this Action against the City of New York and/or Defendant, incurred at any time prior to the entry of this Fee Stipulation as "so ordered," including without limitation all past, present and future officials, employees, departments, agencies, representatives, directors and agents of either the City of New York or HRA, their successors and assigns and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and transferees, and each of them ("City Entities or Individuals")...This Fee Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, and a signature received by facsimile or email shall be deemed valid for all purposes. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 1/26/2018) (ras) (Entered: 01/26/2018)