Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 1 of 11
CLOSED,CASREF,ECF
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−01410−TPG

Rafferty et al v. Doar et al Assigned to: Judge Thomas P. Griesa Referred to: Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman (Settlement) Cause: 42:12112 Americans with Disabilities Act − Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/01/2013 Date Terminated: 10/23/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Megan Rafferty on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Cary Lacheen National Center for Law and Economic Justice, Inc. 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10010 (212) 633−6967 Fax: (212) 633−6371 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory Lee Bass National Center For Law and Economic Justice 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001−6860 (212)−633−6967 Fax: (212)−633−6371 Email: bass@nclej.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny Ross Aquines Pelaez National Center For Law and Economic Justice 275 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 (212)−633−6967 Fax: (212)−633−6371 Email: pelaez@nclej.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Matthew Link Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)−988−2797 Fax: (215)−988−2757 Email: joshua.link@dbr.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Cohan Welfare Law Center, Inc. 275 Seventh Avenue Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001 212−633−6967 Fax: 212−633−6371 Email: cohan@nclej.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Mannix

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 2 of 11

National Center For Law and Economic Justice 275 Seventh Ave. New York, NY 10001 (212)633−6967 Fax: (212)633−6371 Email: mannix@nclej.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Daly Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)−988−2700 Fax: (215)−988−2757 Email: michael.daly@dbr.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Deborah Haynes on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Cary Lacheen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny Ross Aquines Pelaez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Matthew Link (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Cohan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Mannix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Daly (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leason Jacob on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Cary Lacheen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny Ross Aquines Pelaez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Matthew Link (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Cohan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 3 of 11

Mary Mannix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Daly (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Diana Gray on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Cary Lacheen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny Ross Aquines Pelaez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Matthew Link (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Cohan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Mannix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Daly (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Robert Doar in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York Human Resources Administration
Defendant Kristin Proud in her capacity as Acting Commissioner

represented by Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk NYC Law Department 100 Church Street Rm. New York, NY 10007 (212)−356−0893 Fax: (212)−788−0940 Email: ckruk@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Serena Mabel Longley NYC Law Department 100 Church Street Rm. New York, NY 10007 (212) 788−0957 Fax: (212) 788−8877 Email: slongley@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Peter Gasior Office of the Attorney General, New York

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 4 of 11

of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assitance

State 120 Broadway 24th Floor New York, NY 10271 212−416−8570 Fax: 212−416−6077 Email: john.gasior@ag.ny.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Fang New York State Office of the Attorney General (28 Liberty) 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212−416−8656 Fax: 212−416−8962 Email: linda.fang@ag.ny.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Nirav Shah, M.D. in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health

represented by John Peter Gasior (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Fang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
The New York City Human Resources Administration

represented by Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

represented by John Peter Gasior (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Fang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant New York State Department of Health

represented by John Peter Gasior (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Fang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/01/2013
03/01/2013

# Docket Text
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Robert Doar, New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD, The New York City Human Resources Administration. (cde) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (cde) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 5 of 11

03/01/2013 03/01/2013 03/05/2013
03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013 03/12/2013
03/12/2013 03/13/2013

Case Designated ECF. (cde) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E−MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney CARY LACHEEN for noncompliance with Section 14.3 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions. E−MAIL the PDF for Document 1 Complaint, to: caseopenings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (cde) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
1 COMPLAINT against Robert Doar, New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD, The New York City Human Resources Administration. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 465401061444)Document filed by Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty, Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes.(cde) (jd). (Entered: 03/05/2013)
2 MOTION to Certify Class. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. Responses due by 3/22/2013(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
3 DECLARATION of Cary LaCheen, Esq. in Support re: 2 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
4 DECLARATION of Gerald S. Hartman, Esq. in Support re: 2 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
5 DECLARATION of Megan Rafferty in Support re: 2 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
6 DECLARATION of Deborah Haynes in Support re: 2 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
7 DECLARATION of Leason Jacob in Support re: 2 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
8 DECLARATION of Diana Gray in Support re: 2 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
9 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 2 MOTION to Certify Class.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty.(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
11 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Cary LaCheen, Esq. in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) Modified on 3/20/2013 (db). (Entered: 03/12/2013)
12 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
13 DECLARATION of Cary LaCheen, Esq. in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 6 of 11

03/13/2013 03/13/2013 03/13/2013 03/13/2013 03/14/2013 03/14/2013 03/14/2013 03/14/2013 03/14/2013 03/14/2013 03/21/2013 03/26/2013 03/26/2013 04/01/2013

Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
14 DECLARATION of Megan Rafferty in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
15 DECLARATION of Deborah Haynes in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
16 DECLARATION of Leason Jacob in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
17 DECLARATION of Diana Gray in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
18 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Robert Doar served on 3/12/2013, answer due 4/2/2013. Document filed by Leason Jacob; Megan Rafferty; Diana Gray; Deborah Haynes. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
19 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. The New York City Human Resources Administration served on 3/12/2013, answer due 4/2/2013. Document filed by Leason Jacob; Megan Rafferty; Diana Gray; Deborah Haynes. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
20 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Kristin Proud served on 3/12/2013, answer due 4/2/2013. Document filed by Leason Jacob; Megan Rafferty; Diana Gray; Deborah Haynes. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
21 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance served on 3/12/2013, answer due 4/2/2013. Document filed by Leason Jacob; Megan Rafferty; Diana Gray; Deborah Haynes. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
22 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. Nirav Shah, MD served on 3/13/2013, answer due 4/3/2013. Service was accepted by J. Mark Noorsdy, Senior Attorney. Document filed by Leason Jacob; Megan Rafferty; Diana Gray; Deborah Haynes. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
23 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. New York State Department of Health served on 3/13/2013, answer due 4/3/2013. Service was accepted by J. Mark Noorsdy, Senior Attorney. Document filed by Leason Jacob; Megan Rafferty; Diana Gray; Deborah Haynes. (Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
24 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Serena Mabel Longley on behalf of Robert Doar (Longley, Serena) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
25 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Linda Fang on behalf of New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD (Fang, Linda) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
26 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Caroline G. LaCheen on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: National Center for Law and Economic Justice, 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506, New York, NY, USA 10001, 212−633−6967. (LaCheen, Caroline) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
27 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Serena Longley dated 3/21/13 re: Counsel writes to request that the time for all defendants to respond to plaintiffs' motion to certify a class be extended from 3/22/13 to 4/22/13. ENDORSEMENT: Approved. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 2 MOTION to Certify Class:( Responses due by 4/22/2013) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 4/1/2013) (mro) (Entered: 04/01/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 7 of 11

04/01/2013 04/01/2013 04/03/2013 05/08/2013
05/17/2013
06/21/2013 08/07/2013
08/08/2013

28 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Robert Doar answer due 5/10/2013; New York State Department of Health answer due 5/10/2013; New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance answer due 5/10/2013; Kristin Proud answer due 5/10/2013; Nirav Shah, MD answer due 5/10/2013; The New York City Human Resources Administration answer due 5/10/2013. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 4/1/2013) (cd) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. 2 MOTION to Certify Class. Responses due by 5/10/2013 (cd) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
29 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Mary Mannix on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: National Center for Law and Economic Justice, 275 Seventh Ave, Suite 1506, New York, New York, USA 10001, 212−633−6967. (Mannix, Mary) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
30 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED UPON, by and among all parties through their undersigned counsel, as follows: The time for Defendants to respond to the complaint, the motion for class certification, and the motion for preliminary injunction is extended to May 10,2013. This stipulation may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one stipulation, and may be executed by facsimile or electronically−transmitted signature. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 5/08/2013) (ama) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
31 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Linda Fang dated 5/09/2013 re: I write now, on behalf of the State and City Defendants, to respectfully request an extension of time for them to respond to the complaint, the motion for class certification, and the motion for preliminary injunction, to June 21, 2013. The current deadline for these responses is May 10,2013. ENDORSEMENT: Approved., New York State Department of Health answer due 6/21/2013; New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance answer due 6/21/2013; Kristin Proud answer due 6/21/2013; Nirav Shah, MD answer due 6/21/2013.( Responses due by 6/21/2013) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 5/17/2013) (ama) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
32 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Linda Fang dated 6/20/13 re: Counsel writes to request an extension of time to respond to the complaint, the motions for preliminary injunction and for class certification until 7/22/13. ENDORSEMENT: Approved. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction., 2 MOTION to Certify Class:( Responses due by 7/22/2013) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 6/21/2013) (mro) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
33 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CLASS CERTIFICATION: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree this action should be certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), on the following terms: The proposed class meets the requirements to proceed as a class action under Rule 23(a) because: (1) the number of plaintiffs is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of those of the class; and (4) the named plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 8/07/2013) (ama) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
34 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Linda Fang dated 7/19/2013 re: The parties continue to be actively engaged in working towards a potential resolution to this action, and would like more time to continue these efforts in the coming months. Accordingly, I write now, on behalf of all defendants, to request extensions of time to respond to the complaint and the motion for preliminary injunction in the above−referenced matter, which are currently due July 22, 2013. Defendants respectfully request an extension of the deadlines to respond to the complaint and the motion to preliminary injunction until November 1, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: Approved., Robert Doar answer due 11/1/2013; New York State Department of Health answer due 11/1/2013; New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance answer due 11/1/2013; Kristin Proud answer due 11/1/2013; Nirav Shah, MD answer due 11/1/2013; The New York City Human Resources Administration answer due 11/1/2013.( Responses due by 11/1/2013) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 8/08/2013) (ama) (Entered: 08/09/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 8 of 11

11/19/2013 12/02/2013 12/09/2013
12/12/2013 12/12/2013 12/16/2013 12/16/2013 12/17/2013 12/20/2013 01/17/2014 03/19/2014 04/14/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas P. Griesa: Settlement Conference held on 11/19/2013. Case not settled. Pretrial conference held. Submit scheduling order. (sc) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
35 NOTICE of Proposed Order re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Joint Proposed Order)(Pelaez, Jenny) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
36 ORDER: dismissing 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. it is hereby ORDERED that: In light of the parties' continued efforts to reach a complete resolution of this matter, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief is hereby dismissed without prejudice to its renewal. By January 20, 2014 and March 20, 2014, the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court advising on the progress of their negotiations. By May 20, 2014, if no resolution is reached, the parties shall submit a proposed Rule 16(d) Scheduling Order to the Court setting a schedule for all pretrial matters, including a date by which Plaintiffs shall renew their motion for preliminary injunctive relief, a briefing schedule on that motion, dates for fact and expert discovery, and a proposed date for a preliminary injunction hearing. If the parties reach an impasse in their settlement negotiations at any time before May 20, 2014, Plaintiffs may notify the Court by letter, and renew Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/09/2013) (ama) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
37 MOTION for Michael P. Daly to Appear Pro Hac Vice , Certificate of Service. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−9168030. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Daly, Michael) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 37 MOTION for Michael P. Daly to Appear Pro Hac Vice , Certificate of Service. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−9168030. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
38 MOTION for Joshua M. Link to Appear Pro Hac Vice , Certificate of Service. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−9179479. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Diana Gray, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Link, Joshua) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 38 MOTION for Joshua M. Link to Appear Pro Hac Vice , Certificate of Service. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−9179479. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
39 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 37 Motion for Michael P. Daly to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The motion of Michael P. Daly, for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above−captioned action is granted. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/17/2013) (ama) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
40 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 38 Motion for Joshua M. Link to Appear Pro Hac Vice.The motion of Joshua M. Link, for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above−captioned action is granted. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/20/2013) (ama) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
41 LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Marc Cohan dated January 17, 2014 re: Settlement Status Update. Document filed by Megan Rafferty.(Cohan, Marc) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
42 LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Linda Fang dated March 19, 2014 re: Update on progress of settlement discussions. Document filed by New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD.(Fang, Linda) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
43 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Gregory Lee Bass on behalf of Megan Rafferty. (Bass, Gregory) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 9 of 11

05/22/2014
07/21/2014 08/19/2014 09/22/2014 09/24/2014 10/07/2014
11/04/2014 12/08/2014 01/20/2015 02/11/2015 02/17/2015 02/19/2015 02/20/2015 03/23/2015 04/22/2015 05/21/2015

44 ORDER: The parties shall continue to meet and confer on a regular basis to discuss a potential resolution of this action. By 7/21/2014, and 8/20/2014, the parties shall submit joint letters to the Court advising on the progress of their negotiations. By 9/22/2014, if no resolution is reached, the parties shall submit a proposed Rule 16(d) Scheduling order to the Court, and as further set forth in this document. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 5/22/2014) (cd) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
45 LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Linda Fang dated July 21, 2014 re: Update on Settlement Progress. Document filed by New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD.(Fang, Linda) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
46 LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Linda Fang dated August 19, 2014 re: Update on Settlement Progress. Document filed by New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD.(Fang, Linda) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
47 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Conference re: 44 Order, Request for Magistrate Judge Referral addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Greg Bass dated 09/22/14. Document filed by Megan Rafferty.(Bass, Gregory) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
48 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk on behalf of Robert Doar, The New York City Human Resources Administration. (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
49 ORDER: Upon the consent of all parties, this matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman to conduct proceedings, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), for the facilitation of a potential settlement in this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/7/2014) (ajs) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman: Settlement Conference held via telephone on 11/4/2014. Telephone conference scheduled for 12/16/14 at 10:00 a.m. (aba) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
50 FIRST LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Greg Bass dated 12/8/2014 re: Settlement Status. Document filed by Megan Rafferty.(Bass, Gregory) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman: Settlement Conference held via telephone on 1/20/2015. Telephone conference scheduled for 2/11/15 at 2:00 p.m. (aba) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman: Settlement Conference held via telephone on 2/11/2015. Telephone conference scheduled for 2/17/15 at 11:30 a.m. Settlement conference scheduled for 2/20/15 at 2:00 p.m. (aba) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman: Settlement Conference held via telephone on 2/17/2015. (aba) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
51 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John Peter Gasior on behalf of New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD. (Gasior, John) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman: Settlement Conference held on 2/20/2015. (aba) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman: Settlement Conference held via telephone on 3/23/2015. (aba) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
52 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Greg Bass dated 4/22/15. Document filed by Megan Rafferty.(Bass, Gregory) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
53 LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Greg Bass dated 5/21/15 re: Stipulation and Order of Settlement. Document filed by Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulation and Order of Settlement)(Bass, Gregory) (Entered: 05/21/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 10 of 11

07/08/2015 07/14/2015
07/24/2015 07/24/2015 09/25/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015
10/05/2015 10/05/2015

54 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment . Document filed by Megan Rafferty. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A − Proposed Rule 23(3) Order, # 2 Ex. 1 − Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, # 3 Ex. 2 − Disability Providers for Class Notice Distribution, # 4 Ex. 3 − Legal Aid Providers for Class Notice Distribution)(Bass, Gregory) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
55 ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e): A hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be held before the undersigned on 10/1/2015, for purposes of determining whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court. The hearing shall take place before the Honorable Thomas P. Griesa, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 26B, New York, NY 10007−1312, and will begin at 2:00pm. (As further set forth in this Order) (Fairness Hearing set for 10/1/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 26B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Thomas P. Griesa.) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 7/14/2015) (kl) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
56 NOTICE of Proposed Class Action Settlement Under 28 USC section 1715. Document filed by Robert Doar, New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD, The New York City Human Resources Administration. (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement Under 28 USC section 1715 served on Attorneys General (see included list) on July 23, 2015. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Robert Doar, New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD, The New York City Human Resources Administration. (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
58 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − MOTION for Settlement Declaration of Greg Bass. Document filed by Megan Rafferty.(Bass, Gregory) Modified on 10/1/2015 (db). (Entered: 09/25/2015)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Gregory Lee Bass to RE−FILE Document 58 MOTION for Settlement Declaration of Greg Bass. Use the event type Declaration in Support of Motion found under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (db) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
59 DECLARATION of Greg Bass in Support re: 54 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment .. Document filed by Megan Rafferty. (Bass, Gregory) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas P. Griesa: Fairness Hearing held on 10/1/2015. All class plaintiffs represented by Attorney Gregory Bass, Mark Cohan, and Joshua M. Link. Defendants Robert Doar and The NYC Human resources Administration, represented by Attorney Carolyn Kruk. Defendants Kristin Proud, Niray Shad, M.D., NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and NYS Department of Health represented by Attorneys Linda Fang and John Gasior. (Court Reporter Patricia Nilsen) (Zaepfel, Kenneth) Modified on 10/1/2015 (Zaepfel, Kenneth). (Entered: 10/01/2015)
60 LETTER addressed to Judge Thomas P. Griesa from Carolyn Kruk dated October 5, 2015 re: Class Action Fairness Act. Document filed by Robert Doar, New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD, The New York City Human Resources Administration.(Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
61 ORDER: On October 1, 2015, the court held a fairness hearing and tentatively approved from the bench the parties' proposed stipulation and order of settlement ("the order"). On October 5, 2015−before the court issued a signed version of the order−defendants informed the court that the order should not issue until October 22, 2015, after the 90−day waiting period under 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d) expires. (Dkt. No. 60.) Plaintiffs do no oppose defendants' request that the court delay issuing the order. Accordingly, the court will not issue the order until October 22, 2015. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/5/2015) (kl) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-1410 As of: 05/21/2018 10:58 PM EDT 11 of 11

10/23/2015 12/11/2015 04/13/2018

62 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned, that this action is settled, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the following terms and conditions: The parties shall negotiate in good faith Plaintiffs' entitlement to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements to be awarded to Class Counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205 for all work through and including the execution of the Stipulation and Order. Upon the execution of this Stipulation and Order by counsel for all parties, Class Counsel shall forward to counsel for Defendants, no later than one business day thereafter, Class Counsel's time and billing records and statements of costs incurred in this action for which recovery is sought, so the parties may proceed to negotiate the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. As of the Effective Date, all claims contained in the Complaint, with the exception of those specifically reserved herein pursuant to paragraphs 41 and 42, shall be dismissed with prejudice. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/23/2015) (kl) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
63 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT FOR FEES AND COSTS: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Class Plaintiffs and Defendants, as represented below, as follows: 1. State Defendants agree to pay the sum of $300,000.00 to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements in or arising from this action. 2. City Defendant agrees to pay the sum of $300,000.00 to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements in or arising from this action. Payment shall be made by delivering checks, for the amounts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 herein, payable to the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506, New York, NY 10001. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/11/2015) (kl) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
64 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Linda Fang on behalf of New York State Department of Health, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Kristin Proud, Nirav Shah, MD. New Address: New York State Office of the Attorney General, 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York, United States 10005, (212) 416−8656. (Fang, Linda) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

 
 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1 of 39

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COffin FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MEGAN RAFFERTY, DEBORAH HAYNES, LEASON JACOB, and DIANA GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. _ _ _ _ _ _ (S.D.N.Y.)<.

ROBERT DOAR, in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration;

KRISTIN PROUD, in her capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistlillce;

NIRAV SHAH, M.D., in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health;
the NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION;
the NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE; and,
the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT Megan Rafferly, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob and Diana Gray ("Class Representatives" or "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2 of 39

hereby commence this civil action against Robert Doar, in his capacity as Commissioner of the

New York City Human Resources Administration, Kristin Proud, in her capacity as Acting

Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Nirav Shah, M.D., in his capacity

as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, the New York City Hmnan

Resources Administration ("HRA"), the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability

Assistance ("OTDA"), and the New York State Department of Health ("DOH") (collectively,

"Defendants") and allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

This is a class action for declaratory relief, preliminary injunctive relief, and

permanent injtmctive relief to compel Defendants to comply with the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-797h; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV,§ 1; the New York

State Human Rights Law, N.Y EXEC. LAW § 291 et seq.; the New York City Hmnan Rights Law,

N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE§ 8-107; and regulations of the New York State Office of Temporary and

Disability Assistance, 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §303.1.

2.

The ADA, as stated in 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1), was enacted in 1990 to

"provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for tbc elimination of disclimination

against individuals with disabilities."

3.

Plaintiffs and other similarly sihmtcd blind and seliously visually impaired

Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients can access information if it is provided in

allernative formats such as Braille, large print, on audiotape, CD, DVD, m1 electronic fommt that

is compatible with assistivc technology, or read to them by a qualified reader (collectively

2

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 3 of 39

referred to as "alternative fOrmats"), but Defendants do not provide written materials to blind and

seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients in altcmative

formats that are effective tOr them.

4.

Defendants are the agencies and Commissioners of the agencies that

administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistm1ce Program ("Food Stamps"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011-

36a, and Medicaid, 42 U.S. C. §§ 1396-1396w-5, for residents of New York City.

5.

Defendants all play a role in developing, issuing, mailing, and providing

written materials about the New York City Food Stamps and Medicaid progrmns, but they have

no procedures for detennining whether Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients are

blind or visually impaired m1d need written materials in an altemative format; detennining the

type of alternative fonnats that are effective for these individuals, or providing materials in

alternative formats to blind and visually impaired individuals who need them.

6.

Defendants do not provide adequate notice of the right to obtain written

materials in alternative formats to blind and visually impaired individuals.

7.

Plaintiffs and other blind or seriously visually impaired individuals have asked

HRA, the agency they interact with directly about their benefits, to provide notices, fOnns, and

other written documents to them in altemative fmmats that are eff:ective for them, but HRA has

tfiiled to do so. One named plaintiff asked OTDA and DOH to provide materials in alternative

formats.

8.

In response to requests for written materials in altemative fonnats by

Plaintiffs and others, Defendants have refused to provide matelials in fonnats requested by and

effective for them; or failed to respond to the requests. After these requests were made,

Defendants contimte 1.o send Plaintiffs written materials in fonnats that are inaccessible to them.

3

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 4 of 39

Plaintiffs and others have been and arc being deprived of equal and meaningful access to

information they need to maintain benefits without interruption, understand program rules,

understand changes in their benefits and the reasons for these changes, be informed of deadlines

for providing information, and other crucial infOrmation.

9.

Blind and seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid recipients

have lost benefits because they cannot read and complete recertification forms, which arc not

provided in altcmativc formats.

TilE PARTIES

I 0.

Plaintiff Diana Gray is Medicaid recipient who resides in New York City.

She has received Food Stamps in the past and wants to reapply for Food Stamps.

11.

PlaintiffDimm Gray is seriously visually impaired.

12.

Plaintiff Diana Gray is an "individual with a disability" and a "handicapped

person" and a "qualified individual with a disability" and a "qualified handicapped person" as

those terms are used and defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(20)(B), 794(a); 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1),

12131(2); 7 C.P.R.§§ 15b.3(i), (n), 15b.4; 28 C.P.R.§§ 35.104, 35.130, 35.160; 28 C.P.R.§§

41.32, 41.51; 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.30)(1), 84.4, 84.52; N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 292.21; N.Y.C. ADMIK.

CODE§ 8-102(16)(a); and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1.

13.

Plaintiff Deborah Haynes is a Food Stamps and Medicaid recipient who lives

inNcwYorkCity.

14.

Plaintiff Deborah Haynes is blind.

15.

Plaintiff Deborah Haynes is an "individual with a disability" m1d a

"handicapped person" and a "qualified individual with a disabDity" and a qualified handicapped

person" as those terms are used and defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(20)(B), 794(a); 42 U.S.C. §§

4

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 5 of 39

12102(1), 12131(2); 7 C.F.R. §§ 15b.3(i), (n), 15b.4; 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 35.130, 35.160; 28

C.F.R. §§ 41.32, 41.51; 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.3G)(l), 84.4, 84.52; N.Y. EXEC. LAW§ 292.21; N.Y.C.

ADMIN. CODE§ 8-102(16)(a); and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1.

16.

Plaintiff Leason Jacob is a Food Stamps and Medicaid recipient who lives in

New York City.

17.

Plaintiff Leason Jacob is blind.

18.

PlaintjffLeason Jacob is m1 "individual with a disability" and a "handicapped

person" and a "qualified individual -with a disability" and a "qualified handicapped person" as

those terms are used and defined in 29 U.S.C. §§ 705(20)(B), 794(a); 42 U.S. C. §§ 12102(1),

12131(2); 7 C.F.R. §§ 15b.3(i), (n), 15b.4; 28 C.P.R.§§ 35.104, 35.130, 35.160; 28 C.F.R. §§

41.32, 41.51; 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.3U)(l), 84.4, 84.52; N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 292.21; N.Y.C. ADMIN.

CODE§ 8-102(16)(a); and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1.

19.

Plaintiff Megan Rafferty is a Food Stamps and Medicaid recipient who resides

in New York, New York.

20.

Plaintiff Megan Rafferty is seriously visually impaired.

21.

Plaintiff Megan Raffetty is an individual with a disability" and a

"handicapped person" and a "qualified individual with a disability" and a "qualified handicapped

person" as those tem1s are used and defined in29 U.S.C. §§ 705(20)(B), 794(a); 42 U.S. C. §§

12102(1), 12131(2); 7 C.F.R. §§ 15b.3(i), (n), 15b.4; 28 C.P.R.§§ 35.104, 35.130, 35.160; 28

C.P.R.§§ 41.32, 41.51; 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.3G)(1), 84.4, 84.52; N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 292.21; N.Y.C.

ADMIN. CODE§ 8-102(16)(a); and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1.

22.

Defendant Robert Doar is the Commissioner of the New York City Human

Resoun:es Administration, he is sued in his official capacity.

5

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 6 of 39

23.

Defendant Kristin Proud is the Acting Commissioner of the New York State

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, she is sued in her official capacity.

24.

Defendant Nirav Shah, M.D. is the Commissioner and principal executive of

the New York State Department of Health, he is sued in his official capacity.

25.

Defendant HRA is the local depatiment of social services thai administers the

Food Stamps and Medicaid programs in New York City.

26.

Defendant ODTA is the lead state agency with responsibility for the Food

Stamp program in New York, and the State agency that administers the administrative hearing

("fair heming") process by which individuals can appeal decisions regarding Food Stamps and

Medicaid benefits.

27.

Defendant DOH is the lead State agency in New York State responsible for

the Medicaid program.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

28.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

29.

Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 220l(a) and 2202 and Rule

57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

30.

This comt has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over

pendent state law c1aims.

31.

Defemhmts me subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court because

Defendants reside in this district, can othcnvisc be fo1md in this district, and the actions upon

which the allegations in this complaint arc based occmTed in this district.

6

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 7 of 39

32.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(l) because a

Defendant resides in this district and all Defendants are residents of New York State.

33.

Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because

a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this complaint occurred in this district.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")

34.

The ADA was enacted to "provide a clear and comprehensive national

mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. §

1210l(b)(l).

35.

Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities, defined to include state and local

governments and their departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, fi:om excluding qualified

individuals with disabilities from participating in or denying them the benefits ofthe services,

progrmns, or activities of the public entity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(1)(A)-(B), 12132; and

28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 35.130(a).

36.

Regulations implementing Title li ofthe ADA provide that "[a] public entity

shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants,

members of the public,_ and companions with disabilities are as effective a_-; communication with

others." 28 C.P.R.§ 35.160(a).

37.

Under the ADA, an "individual with a disability" is defined in pertinent part

as an individual an individual with a "physical or mental impaitmcnt that substm1tially limits one

or more major life activities of such individual; ... "42 U.S.C § 12102{l)(A). Under the ADA,

a "qualified individual with a disability" is defined as "an individual wiU1 a disability who, with

or without ... [ ], the removal of ... [] communication ... [] barriers, or the provision of

7

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 8 of 39

auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services

or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2);

28 C.P.R. § 35.104.

38.

Implementing regulations to the ADA provide that "[a} public entity shall

furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with

disabilities, including applicants, participants, companions, and members of the public, an equal

opporlunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public

entity." 28 C.P.R. § 35. I60(b)(1); see also 42 U.S. C. § 12131(2) (defining "qualified individual

with a disability" a..'l "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable

modifications to the rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, conummication, or

transportation bani.ers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets tbc essential

eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.").

39.

"Auxiliary aids and services" are defined in the ADA to include "qualified

readers, taped texts, or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials available

to individuals witb visual impainnents," 42 U.S.C. § 12103(1)(8), and in implementing

regulations to include"[q}ualified readers; taped texts; audio recordings; Brailed materials and

displays; screen reader software; magnification software; optical readers; secondary auditory

programs (SAP); large print rnatetials; accessible electronic and infonnation technology; or other

effective methods of making visually delivered matetials available to individuals who arc blind

or have low vision." 28 C.F.R § 35.1 04(2).

8

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 9 of 39

40.

Implementing regulations to the ADA provide that "[i]n dctennining what

types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity shall give primary

consideration to the requests of individuals with disabiEtics." 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2).

41.

Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that "[t]he type of

auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance

with the method of communication used by tl1e individual; the nature, length, and complexity of

the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place." Id.

42.

Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that "in order to be

effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner,

and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence ofthe individual with a disability."

I d.

43.

Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that "[a) public entity,

in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or

other arrangements, on the basis of disability-

1.

Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate

in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;

n.

Afford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate

in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that

afforded others;

111.

Provide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or

service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the

same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of

achievement as that provided to others ...."

9

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 10 of 39

28 C.P.R.§§ 35.130(b)(1) (i)-(iii).

44.

Regulations implementing Title II ofthe ADA provide that"[a1public entity

may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of

administration: That have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to

discrimination on the basis of disability."' 28 C.P.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i).

45.

Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA provide that "[a] public entity

shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modHications

are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, Lmless the public entity can

demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,

program, or activity." 28 C.P.R.§ 35.130(b)(7); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), defining

"qualified individual with a disability'' as "an individual with a disability who, with or without

reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, ... [ ] meets the essential eligibility

requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by

a public entity."

46.

Regulations implementing Title Il ofthe ADA require public entities to make

available to participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons information regarding the

ADA m1d its applicability to the programs, services, and activities of the public entity. 28 C.P.R.

§ 35.106.

47.

The Food Stamp Act and implementing regulations require Food Stamps

programs to comply with the ADA. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(C)(2)(c); 7 C.P.R.§ 272.6(a).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504'1

48.

Section 504 prohibits programs and activities receiving fhleral tinm1cial

assistance from excluding otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities from participation in,

10

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 11 of 39

or denying them the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination solely by reason

of disability. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); see a/sa 7 C.P.R.§ 15b.4(a); 28 C.P.R.§ 41.51(a); and 45

C.P.R.§ 84.4(a).

49.

Section 504 regulations applicable to recipients of federal assistance from the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Department of Justice Section 504 Coordination

regulations, provide that "[r]ecipients [of federal financial assistance] shall take appropriate steps

to ensure that communications with their applicants, employees, and beneficiaries are available

to persons with impaired vision and hearing." 7 C.P.R. § 15b.4(d); 28 C.F.R. § 41.51 (c).

50.

Regulations implementing Section 504 provide that a recipient of federal

financial assistance "in providing any aid, benefit or service, may not, directly or through

contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis ofhandicap:

(i) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or services;
(ii) Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or services that is not equal to that afforded others;
(iii) Provide a qualiiled handicapped person with an aid, benefit or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit or to reach the same level of achievement in the most integrated setting appropriate as tl1at provided to others ....

(vii) Otherwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the enjoyment of any rights, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving an aid, benefit or service."

7 C.F.R. §§ l5b.4(b)(l)(i)-(iii), (vii); 45 C.P.R.§§ 84.4(b)(l)(i)-(iii), (vi); 45 C.F.R. §§

84.52(a)(l)-(3); and 28 C.P.R.§§ 41.51(b)(l)(i)-(iii), (vii).

51.

Section504 regulations applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance

fi-om the Department of Health and Human Services provide that "[a] recipient to which this

subpart applies that employs tlfteen or more persons shall provide appropriate auxiliary aids to

11

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 12 of 39

persons with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, where necessary to afford such

persons an equal opportunity to benefit from the service in question." 45 C.F.R. § 84.52(d)(l ).

52.

"Auxiliary aids" in the regulations under Section504 are defined to include

"brailled and taped material, interpreters, and other aids for persons with impaired hearing or

vision." 45 C.F.R. § 84.52(d)(3).

53.

Regulations lmder Section 504 provide that a recipient of federal fmancial

assistm1cc that "provides notice concerning benefits or services ... shall take such steps as are

necessmy to ensure that qualified handicapped persons, including those with impaired sensory or

speaking skills, are not denied effective notice because of their handicap." 45 C.P.R. § 84.52(b).

54.

OTDA regulations provide that to comply with Section 504 regulations, local

districts must provide infonnation in a manner that is accessible to blind or deaf applicants or

recipients. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 355.l(b).

55.

The Food Stamp Act and implementing regulations also prohibit

discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the Food Stamps program, and specifically

require Food Stmnps programs to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 7 U.S.C. §

2020(C)(2)(B); 7 C.P.R. § 272.6(a).

New York State Human Rights Law

56.

'l11e New York State HLUnan Rights Law ("NYSHRL") prohibits agents and

employees of any place of public accommodation from engaging in discriminatory practices

against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in the accmmnodations, adva11tagcs,

facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation. N.Y. EXEC. LAW§ 296.2(a).

57.

"Discriminatory practice" is defined in the NYSHRL to include:

(i) a refusal to make reasonable modification:; in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford facilities,

12

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 13 of 39

privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, tmless such person can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations; (ii) a refusal to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless such person can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or accommodation being offered or vmuld result in an undue burden; (iii) a refusal to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities, and transportation baniers in existing vehicles and rail passenger cars used by an establishment for transporting individuals (not including barriers that can only be removed through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail passenger cars by the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where such removal is readily achievable; and (iv) where such person can demonstrate that the removal of a barrier under subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph is not readily achievable, a failure to make such facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations available through alternative methods if such methods are reaclily achievable.

!d.§§ 296.2(c)(i)-(iv).

58.

The term "place ofpublic accommodation" in the NYSHRL includes "all

places included in the meaning of such terms," except as specified in the statute. !d. § 292.9.

59.

Under the NYSHRL, "disability" is defined in part to include a physical,

mental, or medical impaim1ent resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic, or neurological

conditions that prevent the exercise of normal bodily function. !d. § 292.21.

New York City Jluman Rights Law

60.

The New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") prohibits agents and

employees of any place or provider of public accommodation from refusing or denying the

accommodations, advantages, privileges, facilities, or privileges of the place or provider of

public accommodation because of the disability on the basis of disability. N.Y.C. ADMT;\. CODE

§ 8-107(4)(a).

13

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 14 of 39

61.

The NYCHRL defines "place or provider of public accommodation" to

include "providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities,

accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places, whether licensed or

unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any

kind are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available." Id. § 8-1 02(9).

62.

A place or provider of public accommodation is required to make reasonable

accommodation to enable people with disabilities to enjoy the rights in question provided that the

disability is known or should have been known by the entity. !d.§ 8-107(15)(a).

63.

The NYCHRL defines "disability" to include a physical, medical, mental, or

psychological impairment, including an impairment of special sensory organs. I d. § 8-

\02(16)(a).

New York State OTDA Regulations

64.

OTDA regulations prohibit local departments of social services from

establishing or applying policies that have a discriminatory effect on individuals with disabilities

becauscofhandicap. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 303.\(a)-(b).

65.

TI1e OTDA regulations prohibit local districts from denying aid, care,

services, benefits, or privileges on the basis of handicap; restricting enjoyment of advantages or

privileges of programs enjoyed by others; denying individuals an opportunity to participate in

programs or services; or providing an opportunity to participate that is different from that

provided to others in the program. !d.§§ 303.1(b)(1), (4), (6).

14

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 15 of 39

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The New York City Food Stamps am! Medicaid Programs

66.

Upon information and belief, DOH, OTDA, and HRA all play a role in

developing, producing, and distributing written materials about Food Stamps and Medicaid.

67.

Upon information and belief, DOH issues written materials to applicants and

recipients of Medicaid in New York City.

68.

Upon information and belief, OTDA issues written material to applicants m1d

recipients of Food Stamps and Medicaid in New York City, and to Food Stamp and Medicaid

applicants and recipients including those persons who request fair hearings.

69.

Upon information and belief, I-IRA issues written material to applicants and

recipients of Food Stamps and Medicaid in New York City.

70.

Upon information and belie±: OTDA has developed infmmation booklets for

Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants m1d recipients that contain general information about

client rights and responsibilities m1d agency procedures that it requires HRA to distribute or

make available in other ways to Food Stamps and Medicaid applicm1ts and recipients recertif)ring

eligibility for benefits.

71.

Upon infonnation m1d belief, OTDA develops written materials and makes

them available to local social service districts, which have the option to distribute the OTDA-

developed matelials.

72.

Pursuant to OTDA Policy Directive# 12-ADM-07, OTDA develops Food

Stamps application forms and notices and requires HRA to use them.

73.

Upon information and belief, OTDA provides the HRA and other local

distlicts with copies of"statc printed" f{}fJns and publications, and informs local districts that

15

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 16 of 39

they can order additional paper copies from Document Services at the OTDA or obtain electronic

copies of forms from an OTDA Intranet website.

74.

Upon infOrmation and belief, DOH operates a warehouse from which the

HRA and other local districts can obtain copies of Medicaid forms and publications, and makes

many forms, notices, and other materials available to HRA through a DOH Intranet website.

75. Upon infonnation and belief~ some Food Stamps and Medicaid notices sent to

applicants and recipients, such as notices issued by the Client Notification System (CNS) for

approvals, denials, changes, recertifications, and closings of Food Stamp and Medicaid benefits,

are a joint effort by HRA and OTDA. Upon infonnation and belief, data is entered by HRA and

CNS notices arc generated and printed by OTDA's data center and mailed directly to Food Stamp

and Medicaid applicants and recipients.

HRA, OTDA, and DOH Do Not Provide Effective Communication with Blind and Serious(v Visually Impaired Individuals

76.

Upon infonnation and belief, HRA, OTDA and DOH have no procedure,

practice, or custom of providing copies of application forms, instmctions, notices, infonnational

materials, fair hearing-related materials, or other written materials to blind or seriously visually

impaired individuals in formats that are accessible to them, even if the individual is known to

these agencies to be blind or seriously visually impaired.

77.

Upon information and belief, blind and seriously visually impaired individuals

cannot read the instructions mailed with Food Stamps recertification fmms, so they do not know

what documents to bring with them when they go to the llRA for help, often necessitating

additional trips to the l-IRA to complete the recertification process.

78.

Upon infonnation and belief, OTDA does not generally provide fair hearing

notices and heming decisions in altemative formats to blind or seriously visually impaired

16

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 17 of 39

individuals, and HRA docs not generally provide hearing packets to appellants who are blind or

seriously visually impaired in alternative formats.

79.

Upon information and belief, HRA, OTDA, and DOH do not contact blind or

seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients by telephone,

email, or other means when they mail written materials to them to infonn them that the agency

has mailed them infom1ation about their Food Stamps and Medicaid benefits.

80.

Upon information and belief, the only notice that blind or seriously visually

impaired applicants and recipients possess about the existence and content of mailed Food

Stamps and Medicaid written materials is embodied in documents that they cannot read as a

result of their blindness m1d serious visual impairments.

81.

HRA's newly issued ADA policy (Policy Directive# 12-30-0PE) does not

require staff to take steps to determine whether Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and

recipients are blind or seriously visually impaired and need information provided in a format

other than standard print and use this information to provide materials and infonnation in

effective formats to individuals who need them.

82.

The online Medicaid application on DOH's website asks whether the

applicant is blind, disabled, or chronically ill, and requires applicants who answer yes to

complete another form, but neither form asks about whether the individual needs infOrmation in

alternative formats or the type of format needed.

83.

HRA's food Stamps application asks whether anyone in the household is

blind, disabled, or pregnant, but does not ask whether anyone in the household needs Food

Stamps materialH in an alternative f(mnat.

17

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 18 of 39

84.

Upon information and belief, HRA, OTDA, and DOH do not provide bEnd or

seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid recipients with their case numbers, the

HRA's telephone number, and other basic information needed to contact the agency and obtain

infonnation by phone in formats that arc accessible to them.

liRA, OTDA, ami DOH Have Failed to Develop Adequate Policies and Procedures for Communicating Effectively with Bli11d or Seriously Visually Impaired Recipients ofFood Stamps and Medicaid.

HRA

85.

HRA's current ADA policy for Job Centers and Food Stamps-only Centers,

issued on October 18, 2012, states that one reasonable accommodation that may be provided to

people with disabilities is "necessary auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective

communication for individuals with hearing or speech limitations," PoHey Directive# 12-30-

OPE, p. 7, but it does not say that HRA may or will provide necessary auxiliary aids and services

needed to ensure effective communication with individuals who are blind or seriously visually

impaired.

86.

l-IRA's new ADA policy states that HRA will help blind and visually impaired

individuals read and complete applications and fOrms, p. 11, but does not mention any

altemative format other than reading documents to clients nor does it require statfto read any

docmnents other than applications and fonns to blind and visually impaired individuals.

87.

HRA's ADA policy requires staff to "assist" blind and seriously visually

impaired clients "as necessary," but the only examples provided are allowing blind and seriously

visually impaired clients to usc service animals and accompanying them to and :fi:om an elevator.

88.

HRA's reasonable accommodation policy for the Medicaid program, MAP

Procedure 09-03 R1 (April 9, 2009), states that individuals with di~abilities have a right to equal

18

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 19 of 39

access to the Medicaid program and services, and defines "reasonable accommodation" to

include "removal of communication ... [barriers]" and "the provision of auxiliary aids and services," but does not define "auxiliary aids and services," require staff to provide blind or

seriously visually impaired individuals with -written materials in alternative formats or instruct

them on how to do so.

89.

Upon information and belief, HRA has no procedures for converting written

materials into alternative formats, such as procedures for converting printed documents into

Braille or accessible electronic documents, or recording the infonnation on audiocassettes or

CDs, procedures identifying the staff responsible for doing this, the timetable in which it must be done, or other implementation procedures.

OTDA

90.

OTDA's ADA and Section 504 policy directive, 06-ADM-05 (April27,

2006), which applies tu Food Stamps, requires local dishicts such as HRA to provide effective

communication with individuals with disabilities, as wc11 as auxiliary aids and services when

necessary to ensure effective communication, pp. 6-7, 16, but it does not address OTDA's

obligation to provide effective communication or written materials in alternative formats to blind

or seliously visually impaired applicants and recipients of Foods Stamps.

91.

Upon information m1d belie( OTDA does not have internal policies or

procedures for routinely converting its materials into altemative formats or providing written

materials in alternative formats to food Stmnps and Medicaid applicants and recipients who are blind or seriously visually impaired.

19

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 20 of 39

DOH

92.

Upon information and belief~ DOH docs not have a policy requiring local

districts to provide written materials to blind or seriously visually impaired Medicaid applicants

and recipients in alternative formats, nor does it have a policy requiring DOH to convert the

materials it issues directly to applicants and recipients into altemativc formats for blind or

seriously visually impaired individuals who need them.

93.

Upon information and belief, HRA, OTDA, and DOH do not have policies,

procedures, or agreements regarding the allocation of responsibility between the agencies for

producing and providing written materials in alternative formats to blind or seriously visually

impaired Medicaid and Food Stamps applicants and recipients.

HRA, OTDA, and DOH Do Not Inform BUnd or Seriously Visually Impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid Applicants and Recipients ofthe Right to Written Materials in Alternative
Format~

94.

Upon infonnation and belief, HRA, OTDA, and DOH do not adequately

infom1 blind or seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients

that they have a right to receive written materials regarding these programs in alternative

fonnats.

95.

A brochure attached to HRA's current ADA policy, titled "Are You A Person

With A Disability?" states that assistance with reading and completing fonns is a reasonable

accommodation that is offered by HRA, but the brochure does not mention obtaining materials in

Braille, large print, accessible electronic formats or other alternative fonnats as a reasonable

accommodation.

20

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 21 of 39

96.

Upon information and belief, liRA does not provide the "Are You A Person

With A Disability?" brochure to blind or seriously visually impaired individuals in formats that

are accessible to them.

97.

Upon information and belief, the HRA staff members have told blind and

seriously visually impaired individuals that the agency does not provide written materials in

alternative formats.

98.

Upon information m1d belief, OIDA and DOH do not inform bEnd or

seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicm1ts and recipients about the right

to receive materials in altcmative formats.

OTDA and DOH Do Not Monitor the liRA's Compliance with the ADA or Section 504 or Monitor Whether liRA Provides Effective Communication With and Alternative Format Materials to Visually Impaired Individuals

99.

Upon information and belief, neither OTDA nor DOH take adequate steps to

detennine whether HRA complies with the ADA obligation to provide blind or seriously visually

impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and .recipients with written materials in

alternative formats that are accessible to them.

100.

Upon information and belief, neither OTDA nor DOH has required HRA to

develop procedures for providing blind or seriously visually impaired individuals with written

materials in alternative fonnats.

~'ACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES Megan Rafferty

1 01.

Megan Rafferty has been seriously visually impaired since bitih m1d she

receives flood Stamps and Medicaid.

102.

Megan Rafferty cmmot read standard print materials.

21

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 22 of 39

1 03.

Megan Ra±lerty has a computer with screen reader software and can read

materials in accessible formats on her computer (text emails and audio or data CDs).

104.

On August 3, 2011, Megan Rafferty infonncd I-IRA in writing through her

lawyer that she is seriously visually impaired and asked HRA to provide her with Food Stamps

and Medicaid fonns and notices in a fOrmat accessible for her, specifically, by email, or on an

audio or data CD that she could read on her computer using screen reader software ("Rafferty

Request").

105.

On September 23, 2011, HRA issued a joint response to the Rafferty Request

and requests from other blind and seriously visually impaired individuals who have sought

written materials in alternative fonnats through Plaintiffs' cmmsel ("HRA Joint Response"),

which stated that Megan Rafferty and other individuals for whom alternative formats were

requested could call HRA when they receive Food Stamps notices to make an appointment to

come to HRA or another location so HRA could read the notice to them.

106.

The I-IRA Joint Response stated that scheduling an appointment would take

one to two weeks.

107.

The liRA Joint Response did not explain why HRA would not provide

documents in the alternative fonnats requested by Megan Rafferty and the other individuals and

did not address the fact that a delay of one to two weeks or more to Icam the contents ofHRA

mailings would significantly reduce the time to respond to deadlines and in some instances could

result in missed deadlines, such as the deadline for requestinguninteiTupted benetlts pending a

decision on a fair hearing.

22

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 23 of 39

108.

The HRA Joint Response did not explain how Megan Rafferty and others

could call the agency to request these appointments when HRA has never provided them with

HRA's phone number and their case munbers in alternative formats that arc effective for them.

109.

The HRA Joint Response also stated that Megan Rafferty and other

individuals who had requested alternative format materials could request home visits from HRA,

but the letter did not indicate whether Ms. Rafferty and others qualified for HRA home visits,

how long it would take to get them, or whether HRA would provide home visits for the sole

purpose of reading documents to clients.

110.

With respect to Medicaid materials, the HRA Joint Response stated that

Megan Rafferty and others could call the HRA Medicaid office and ask for someone to read

recent Medicaid notices to them, but only if the notice was mailed by the HRA, because HRA

would not have a copy of written materials mailed by DOH and therefore could not read them to

a client over the telephone.

111.

The HRA Joint Response stated that HRA was exploring longer tcnn

solutions to tl1e issues raised in the Rafferty Request, and was contacting OTDA and DOH tbr

fmther guidance.

112.

To date, HRA has not provided copies of Food Stamps or Medicaid materials

to Megan Rafferty in a fonnat that is accessible to her, as described in the Rafferty Request.

113.

As a result of her serious vision impaim1ent, Megan Rafferty needs help

completing Food Stamps recertification forms.

114.

In the past an HRA worker at her local center assisted her.

115.

I-IRA notified Megan Rafferty that her Food Stamps case was transfcned to

Brooklyn, farther fi:om her home.

23

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 24 of 39

116.

Megan Rafferty needs her home attendant to accompany her on the subway,

but she has a horne health aid for fewer hours than it takes to travel to Brooklyn and back and get

help from HRA.

117.

On January 17, 2012, through her lawyer, Megan Rafferty asked HRA to

transfer her back to her neighborhood l-IRA center as an accommodation fOr her disability.

118.

HRA informed Megan Rafferty's counsel in response that HRA's computer

system would not accept tbis change, and would continue to send her notices requiring her to go

to the Brooklyn Center.

119.

To date, Megan Rafferty has not been reassigned to her neighborhood Center.

120.

I-IRA has also iilfmmed Plaintiffs' COlmsel that Megan Rafferty could recertify

Food Stamps by automated telephone system, telephone interview, or in person, but has not

provided Megan Rafferty with infOrmation about how to do this in a fmmat that is accessible for

her.

Deborah Haynes

121.

Deborah Haynes has been blind since shortly after bilth.

122.

Deborah Haynes receives Food Stamps and Medicaid.

123.

Deborah Haynes cannot read standard print materials.

124.

Deborah Haynes reads Braille and can access information through audio CDs

and audio cassette tapes.

125.

On September 21, 2011, Deborah Haynes informed HRA in writing through

her lawyer that she is blind and asked I-IRA to provide her with Food Stamps and Medicaid

forms and notices in Braille, audio CD, or audio cassette tape ("Haynes Request").

126.

liRA did not directly respond to the Haynes Request.

24

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 25 of 39

127.

To date, HRA has not provided copies of Food Stamps or Medicaid materials

to Ms. Haynes in a format that is accessible to and effective for her.

128.

HRA infonned PlaintiffS' cmmsel that Deborah Haynes could recertify

eligibility for Food Stamps by automated telephone system, telephone interview, or in person, but has not provided Deborah Haynes with information about how to do this in a format this is

accessible for her.

Leason Jacob

129.

Leason Jacob has been blind since the mid-1990s.

130.

Leason Jacob receives Food Stamps m1d Medicaid.

131.

In January 2012, Leason Jacob's home attendant helped him till out his Food

Stamps recertification fom1 m1d mail it to HRA.

132.

Leason Jacob did not receive Food Stamps in February 2012.

133.

On February 9, 2012, Leason Jacob went with his home attendant to HRA to

get help in completing another recertification fonn.

134.

At no point during Leason Jacob's 2012 recertification process did anyone

from the HRA ask Leason Jacob if he needed written materials in m1 alternative fonnat.

135.

On March 26, 2012, Leason Jacob informed liRA in writing that he is blind

and requested Wiitten notices, fonns and other documents related to his Food Stamps and

Medicaid in alternative formats ("Jacob Request").

! 36.

The alternative fonnat Leason Jacob requested was for liRA to call him at his

home within three business days after mailing him written materials to: infonn him that HRA

had mailed him Food Stamp or Medicaid documents and the date on which they were mailed;

desctibe to him the general nature and -purpose of the mailed documents; inform him of any

25

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 26 of 39

deadlines, appointment dates, times, and locations contained in the written documents; and read the documents to him and answer his questions about them.

137.

To date, HRA has not responded to the Jacob Request and has not provided

copies of Food Stamps or Medicaid materials to him in a format that is accessible to him.

Diana Gray

138.

Diana Gray has been seriously visually impaired since birth.

139. other eye.

Diana Gray is completely blind in one eye and has very limited vision in her

140.

Diana Gray receives Medicaid benefits and wants to apply for Food Stamps,

which she has received in the past and which her income qualifies her for.

141.

Diana Gray cannot read standard print materials.

142.

Diana Gray can read large print materials if she wears glasses with a special

magnifying lens over her regular glasses.

143.

Diana Gray can access email through her smart phone, which has a program

that converts the text on the screen into speech, and she also has an audiotape player to access

infommtion on audiocassettes.

144.

On October 18,2012, Dim1a Gray informed I-IRA, OTDA and DOH in writing

through her lawyer that she is legally blind m1d asked all three agencies to provide her with: (1)

an application for Food Stamps in large print that she can fill it out herself so she can reapply f(JT

Food Stamps; (2) Medicaid and Food Stamps forms in the future in large print; and (3) Medicaid

and Food Stamps notices and other ptinted documents and infmmation in either lmge print,

attached to an email that she can access with her smart phone, or on audiotape.

26

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 27 of 39

145.

In that October 18, 2012 communication M::;. Gray enclosed a certificate of

legal blindness from the Commission for the Blind and Visually Handicapped, a State agency

that provides services to the blind.

146.

In December 2012, HRA sent Diana Gray a notice denying her request

"because HRA has determined that the medical documentation we received does not support your reque::;t for the Reasonable Accommodation" and provided no explanation of why the

documentation was inadequate.

147.

OTDA and DOH did not respond to Diana Gray's accommodation request.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

148.

Pummnt to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of themselves and a class of

similarly situated individuals who: (1) are residents of New York City; (2) are substantially

limited in seeing; (3) are current or former applicants for or recipient_.:; of Food Stamps and/or

Medicaid; (4) need written materials in altemative fOrmats for effective communication

regarding Food Stamps and/or Medicaid (the "class").

149.

Members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable.

! 50.

Upon infmmation and belief~ Defendants do not maintain and publish data on

the number of Medicaid and Food Stamps recipients in New York City who are blind or

seriously visually impaired.

151.

Extrapolating from data posted on Defendants' wcbsitcs, federal agency

wcbsites, and other sources, upon infonnation and belie±: there arc approximately at least 4,000

27

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 28 of 39

Food Stamp and Medicaid recipients in New York City who are blind or seriously visua11y

impaired.

152.

The class is comprised of: (1) approximately 1,640 individuals who receive

Medicaid benefits because they qualify tOr Supplement Security Income ("SST") benefits on the

basis of blindness; (2) approximately 1,558 Medicaid recipients who are blind or seriously

visually impaired who qualify for SST based on either age or another type of disability; (3)

approximately 620 Medicaid recipients who are blind or seriously visually impaired but qualify

for SSI on the basis of age; (4) approximately 365 blind and seriously visually impaired

Medicaid recipients who do not qualify for SSl; (5) an undetennined number ofblind and

seriously visually impaired Food Stmnps recipients who do not qualify for SSI (and therefore

have not already been accmmted for in groups above); and (6) an tmdetennined number of

current and future applicants for and recipients of Food Stamps and Medicaid who are blind or

seriously visually impaired.

153.

Upon information and belief, a significant percentage ofthcsc individuals

need and want materials regarding their benefits and the Food Stamps and Medicaid programs to

be in accessible formats.

154.

lndividuallitigation by each member of the class would burden the judicial

system and would be impracticable because individual class members lack the knowledge,

sophistication, and financial means to maintain individual actions.

155.

The prosecution of individual actions by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated

individuals would create a Iisk of inconsistent adjudications and incompatible rules oflaw.

156.

This case raises common questions of law and fact, including but not limited

to the following:

28

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 29 of 39

a.

Whether Defendants have a process for detennining whether named

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated applicants for and recipients ofFood

Stamps and Medicaid need written materials in alternative formats that are

accessible to them;

b. Whether Defendants have adequate policies and procedures in place for

providing named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated applicants for and

recipients of Foods Stamps and Medicaid with written materials in

a1temative formats that arc accessible to them;

c. Whether Defendants have failed to take the necessary steps to allocate

responsibility between and among them to coordinate the provision of

materials to named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated applicants for

and recipients of Food Stamps and Medicaid in alternative tOnnats that are

accessible to them;

d. Whether Defendants have taken adequate steps to infonn named Plaintiffs

and other similarly situated applicants for and recipients of Food Stamps

and Medicaid of their right to written materials in alternative fnnnats and

the process for obtaining them; and

e. Whether the failure of Defendants Dam, Proud, Shah, and HRA to provide

named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated applicants fOr and recipients

of Food Stamps cmd Medicaid with Wiitten materials in alternative fOm1ats

violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Due Process Clause

ofil1e United States, Constitution;

29

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 30 of 39

f.

Whether the failure of Defendants to provide named Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated applicants for and recipients of Food Stamps and

Medicaid with written materials in alternative formats violates Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act;

g. Whether the failure of Defendants Doar and HRA to provide named

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated applicants for and recipients of Food

Stamps and Medicaid with written materials in alternative fonnats violates

the New York State Human Rights Law;

h. Whether the failure of Defendants Doar and HRA to provide named

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated applicants for and recipients of Food

Stamps and Medicaid with written materials in altemative formats violates

the New York City Human Rights Law; and

t.

Whether the fkilurc of Defendants Doar and HRA to provide named

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated applicants for and recipients of Food

Stamps and Medicaid with written materials in alternative formats violates

the OTDA regulations.

157.

The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class in that Plaintiffs and

each member of the class: (a) resides in New York City; (b) is substantially limited in seeing (c)

is a current of future applicant for or recipient of Food Stamps and/or Medicaid benefits; and (d) needs written matelials about Food Stamps and/or Medicaid in alternative fonnats for effective

communication regarding Food Stamps and/or Medicaid.

30

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 31 of 39

158.

The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent interests of the class

because their intere.o;ts do not conflict with the interests of other class members they seek to

represent.

159.

Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously.

160.

The attorneys representing Plaintiffs are experienced and capable litigators

with significant experience in class action litigation in federal and state courts, including matters relating to Food Stamps, Medicaid, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Due

Process protections.

161.

Class counsel will prosecute this action vigorously and competently.

162.

Defendants have acted on grmmds generally applicable to the class, by:

a.

Failing to provide written materials about the Food Stamps and Medicaid

programs and benefits to the class in alternative fmmats accessible to

them;

b. Failing to develop, implement, and comply -with policies and procedures

regarding the provision of written materials to the class in alternative

fonnats that are accessible to them;

c.

Failing tQ provide Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients

adequate notice of the right to obtain written materials in alternative in

alternative fOrn1ats; and

d. Failing to take the necessary steps to identify visually impaired individuals

that need written materials in alternative fonnats.

I 63.

Declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a

whole.

31

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 32 of 39

164.

A class action is the exclusive method by which the interests of all affected

persons can be adequately protected.

CLAIMS

Count I- Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (Against Defendants Doar, Proud, Shah, and liRA)

165.

Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this complaint by reference

as though set forth fully herein.

166.

Each of the named Plaintiffs and class members is an individual \Vith a

disability as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 121 02(1 )(A), because each has a physical impairment that

substantially limits one or more "major life activities" as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 121 02(2){A),

including the major life activity of"seeing."

167.

Each of the nan1ed Plaintiffs m1d class members is a "qualified individual with

a disability" as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (2) because each is an "individual with a disability"

who meets the essential eligibility requirements for Food Stamps and/or Medicaid benefits

and/or the essential eligibility requirements tbr applying for Food Stamp and/or Medicaid

benefits and for obtaining information about these programs.

168.

HRA, OTDA, and DOH are "public entities" as defined in the ADA, and

Defendants are the principal executives of those respective public entities.

169.

Defendants' failure to provide written materials to Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated applicants for and recipients of Food Stmnps and Medicaid in alternative

fonnats that arc accessible to them violates the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § !2132, and implementing

regulations, 28 C.P.R. §§ 35.130(a), 35.130(b)(l)(ii), 35.130(b)(3)(i), 35.130(b)(7), 35.160(a),

35.160(b)(l), and 35.160(b)(2).

32

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 33 of 39

170.

Defendants' failure to provide infom1ation to Plaintiffs and other similarly

situated individuals about their right to obtain written materials in alternative formats that are

accessible to them, violates the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and implementing regulations, 28

C.F.R. § 35.106.

Count II- Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Against All Defendants)

171.

Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this complaint by reference

as though set fotih fuHy herein.

172.

Each of the Plaintiffs and class members is an "individual with a disability'' as

defined by 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B) because each "has a disability as defined in Section 12102 of

Title 42."

173.

Each ofthe Plaintiffs and class members is a "hm1dicapped person" as defined

by 7 C.P.R. § 15b.3(i) and 45 C.P.R. § 84.3U)(l)(i), because each has a physical impairment that

substantially limits one or more major life activities as defined by 7 C.F.R. §§ 15b.3(j)-{k) and

45 C.F.R. §§ 84.3G)(2)(i)-(ii), including the physical impainnent of a "special sense organs" and

the major life activity of"seeing."

174.

Each of the Plaintiffs and class members is a "qualified individual with a

disability" and "qualified handicapped person" as defmed by 7 C.P.R. § 15b.3(n); 28 C.F.R §

41.32(b); and 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(1), because each is an "individual with a disability" and a

"handicapped person[]" who meets the essential eligibility requirements for Food Stamps and/or

Medicaid benefits and/or the essential eligibility requirements for applying for Food Stmnp

and/or Medicaid benefits and for obtaining inf(mnation about these programs.

175.

The New York City Food Stamps and Medicaid programs are "program[s] or

activit[ies] receiving Federal financial assistance" as refened to in 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); 7 C.P.R. §

33

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 34 of 39

15b.3(g); 28 C.F.R. § 41.3(e); and 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(h), because they are operations ofthc HRA, OTDA and DOH, which receive Federal financial assistance for Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other programs, and because Defendants are "a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government" and/or "the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance" or a "department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government." 29 U.S.C.§ 794(b)(l).

176.

Defendants' failure to provide written materials to Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated persons in alternative formats effective for them violates Section 504 ofthc

Rcbabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), m1d implementing regulations, 7 C.F.R. §§ 15b.4(a),

15b.4(b)(1 )(i)-(iv), 15b.4(d); 28 C.F.R. §§ 41.5(b)(l ), 41.51(b)(l )(ii)-(iii), 41.51 (e); and 45

C.P.R.§§ 84.8(a), 84.8(b), 84.52(a)(l)-(3), 84.52(b), 84.52(d)(l).

177.

Defendants' failure to provide information to Plaintiffs and other similarly

situated persons about their right to obtain Wiitten materials in altemative formats that arc

effective for them, violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and

implementing regulations, 7 C.P.R. § 15b.7(a); 28 C.P.R. § 41.5(b)(1 ); and 45 C. F.R. §§ 84.8, 84.52(b ).

Count III - Violation of Procedural Due Process Under the }_,ourtccnth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(Against Defendants Doar, Proud, Shah, and liRA)

178.

Plaintiffs incorporate U1e preceding paragraphs ofthis complaint by reference

as though set forth fully herein.

179.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution prohibits Defendants fi:om depriving Plaintiffs and other similarly situated

34

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 35 of 39

individuals of a protected property interest without adequate notice and an opportunity to be

heard.

180,

Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals have a protected property interest

in receiving Pood Stamps and Medicaid benefits.

181.

Defendants' failure to provide written materials in accessible formats to

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons in alternative fmmats that are effective for them

denies Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals of adequate notice and an opportunity to be

heard regarding the deprivation oftheir property, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Count IV- Violation ofthc New York State Human Rights Law (Against Defendants Doar and HRA)

182.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs ofthis complaint by

reference as though set forth fully herein.

183.

Each ofthc Plaintiffs and class members are a person with a disability under

the New York State Human Rights Law because each has a physical impainncnt resulting from a

condition that prevents the exercise of normal bodily fimction. N.Y. EXEC. LAW§ 292.21.

184.

Defendant Doar operates a place ofpublic accommodation under the New

York State Human Rights Law. !d. § 292.9.

185.

Defendant Doar's failure to provide written materials to Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated persons in alternative fonnats effective for them violates the New York State

Human Rights Law. Id. §§ 296.2(a), 296.2(c)(i)-(iv).

35

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 36 of 39

Count V- Violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (Against Defendants Doar and HRA)

186.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this complaint by

reference as though set forth fully herein.

187.

Each of the Plaintiffs and class members is a person with a disability under the

New York City Human Rights Law because they have impaired sensory organs. N.Y.C. Anrvm.r.

CODE§ 8-102(16)(a).

188.

Defendant Robert Doar is an agent and principal executive of a place or

provider of public accommodation. !d. § 8-1 02(9).

189.

City Defendants' failure to provide written materials to Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated persons in altemative formats effective for them violates the Nc\V York City

Human Rights Law. !d.§§ 8-107(4)(a); 8-107(15).

Count VI- Violation of New York State OTDA Regulations (Against Defendants Doar and HRA)

190.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs ofthis Complaint by

reference as though set fotih fully herein.

191.

Plaintiffs and class members are individuals with disabilities under the New

York State Social Services regulations. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 303.1(a); (b)(1), (4),(6).

192.

City Defendants' failme to provide WJittcnmaterials to Plaintiffs and other

similarly situated persons in altemative formats effective for U1em violates OTDA regulations

prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

\VIIEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that tills Court:

36

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 37 of 39

a. Certify that this lawsuit maybe maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a) and

23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

b.

Declare that the failure of:

(i) Defendants Doar, Proud, Shah, and HRA to provide written materials in alternative fonnats to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated blind and seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients who need them violates the Americans -with Disabilities Act and implementing regulations;

(ii) Defendants Doar, Proud, Shah, I-IRA, OTDA, and DOH to provide written materials in alternative formats to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated blind and seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients who need them violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and implementing regulations;

(iii) Defendants Doar, Proud, Shah, and HRA to provide written materials in alternative formats to Plaintiffs and otber similarly situated blind and seriously visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients who need them violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

(iv) Defendants Doar and HRA to provide written materials in alternative formats to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals who need them violates the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and OTDA regulations;

c.

Declare that Defendants have a duty to:

(i) provide Wiitten materials in altcmative formats to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated visually impaired Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients who need them;

(ii) develop and implement policies and procedures to determine who needs materials in alternative formats and the alternative fonnats that are effective for them; and

(iii) inform Food Stamps and Medicaid apphcants and recipients of the light to receive written mate1ials in alternative fonnats.

d. lssue a preliminary and pennanent injunction requiring Defendants to:

(1) provide written materials in alternative fonnats to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated visually impaired Food Stm11ps m1d Medicaid applicants and recipients who need them;

37

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 38 of 39

(ii) develop and implement policies and procedures to detennine who needs materials in altemative formats and the altemat:ive formats that arc effective for them;

(iii) inform Food Stamps and Medicaid applicants and recipients of the right to receive written materials in altemative formats; and

(iv) involve individuals with vision impainnents and their advocates in the process of developing and implementing the alternative format materials, policies, and procedures referenced in (i) and (ii) above.

e. Award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133; 29

U.S.C. § 794a(b); and 28 C.F.R. § 35.175.

f.

Appoint a monitor to ensure that Defendants comply with the referenced

injunctions and declarations of Defendants' duties until such time that the monitor certifies to

this Court in writing that Defendants have been in compliance with the relief sought in this case

for one year.

g. Require Defendants to file a written report every six months with the monitor who

has been appointed with respect to sub-paragraph (f.) above, setting forth Defendants' progress

and status in complying with the relief requested in subparagraphs (b)-(d) of the Request for

Relief section in this complaint.

h. Grant any further relief this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: March f, 2013

38

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 39 of 39

Gerald S. Hartman Maureen Donahue Hardwick Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-1209 Phone: (202) 842-8800 Fax: (202) 842-8465 jerry.hartman@dbr.com rnaurccn.hardwick@dbr.com
OfCounselfor Plaintiffs
Michael P. Daly Nicholas S. Feltham Joshua M. Link DJinker Biddle & Rcath LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6999 Phone: (215) 988-2700 Fax: (215) 988-2757 michacl.daly@dbr.com nicholas.fcltham@dbr.com joslma.link@dbr.com
OfCounsel for Plaintiffs

Cary LaChecn (N.Y. Bar No. CL 7687) Marc Cohan (N.Y. Bar No. MC 2612) Mary R. Mannix (N.Y. Bar No. MM 2508) JcnnyR. A. Pelaez (N.Y. Bar No. JP 1364) National Center for Law & Economic Justice 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, New York 10001-6708 Phone: (212) 633-6967 Fax: (212) 633-6371 cohan@nclej.org lachcen@nclej.org maonix@nclej.org pclaez@nclej.org
Counsel fOr Plaintiff~

39

 
 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 33 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 6

G 1. rt\j{)().. I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MEGAN RAFFERTY, DEBORAH HAYNES, LEASON JACOB, and DIANA GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 13 Civ. 1410 (TPG)

ROBERT DOAR, in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration;

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CLASS CERTIFICATION

KRISTIN PROUD, in her capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office ofTemporary and Disability Assistance;
NIRAV SHAH, M.D., in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health;
the NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION;

IUSDCS[),N,'Y, ' .

I' !""PC' I.} J

l,)I,vr,:;.~-,, ~~ "I".

I,~ I'

l! "",},.... "f~-'~~''~1."}":(~"+'t~l<r;-;!t~A,'r_TJ~Y F.ly~."r.r..pJ.n.-~I

a,' _011[3« ;. ! j"

tt,

I

IH, -"P. . /, ," "I ;"- ;..'U ."" i ---'-~---"1:'' 1i)

.., ...:;.:;. . .. :,:::~~",-~==:.:-.;;.;:-~

~ ,~........

"_. -, ... ~:~.. ":j

the NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE; and

the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Defendants.

WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, plaintiffs Megan Rafferty, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, and Diana Gray filed a Complaint on behalf of themselves and of a class of similarly situated blind and seriously visually impaired Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") and Medical Assistance ("Medicaid") applicants and recipients;

1 


Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 33 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleged that Defendants have violated and continue to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-797(b); the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.YExEC. LAW §§ 291 et seq.; the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE § 8-107; and state regulations, 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1, by not providing written materials to blind and seriously visually impaired SNAP and Medicaid applicants and recipients in accessible alternative formats that are effective for them; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the proposed class satisfies the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the claims alleged by the class would be most appropriately litigated or settled as a class action; and
WHEREAS, the parties further agree that, in order to resolve this litigation expeditiously and without needless motion practice, it is in the parties' joint interest that the Court certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2);
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree this action should be certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), on the following terms:
1. A class is certified consisting of: All New York City residents who: (1) have visual impairments that substantially limit the major life activity of seeing or otherwise have a visual disability as "disability" is defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (2) are current or future applicants for or recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") and/or Medical Assistance ("Medicaid") benefits; and (3) need written materials in alternative formats for effective communication regarding SNAP and Medicaid. 2

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 33 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 6
2. The proposed class meets the requirements to proceed as a class action under Rule 23(a) because: (1) the number of plaintiffs is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable; (2) there are questions oflaw or fact common to the class; (3) the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of those of the class; and (4) the named plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
3. As required by Rule 23(a)(1), the class is "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." The parties have already identified more than 800 blind or seriously visually impaired New York City residents who receive SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits.
4. As required by Rule 23(a)(2), there are questions oflaw or fact common to the class, including but not limited to whether Defendants have policies and procedures for producing and providing written materials concerning SNAP and Medicaid in accessible alternative formats to proposed class members; and whether Defendants' alleged conduct violates the ADA, Section 504, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and state regulations.
5. As required by Rule 23(a)(3), Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the proposed class. The proposed class members' claims arise from the same course of conduct and are based upon common legal arguments regarding Defendants' alleged liability. All members of the proposed class would benefit from Plaintiffs' action.
6. As required by Rule 23(a)(4), Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class. None of the Plaintiffs has interests that are antagonistic to the interests of the proposed class because all proposed class members claim to have been harmed by the same alleged wrongs and all will benefit from the relief requested in this action.
3 


Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 33 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 6
7. As required by Rule 23(g)(1), the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, Inc. and Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP shall be appointed to serve as class counsel.
8. As required by Rule 23(g)(4), class counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the proposed class. Class counsel have done extensive work in identifying and investigating the claims in this action, have experience in handling class actions and other complex litigation, have considerable knowledge of the applicable law, and have the necessary resources to commit to prosecuting this action.
9. As required by Rule 23(b)(2), "the part[ies] opposing the class harvel acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." The Complaint's allegations that Defendants violated federal and state laws in, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiffs with written materials about SNAP and Medicaid in accessible alternative formats, are applicable to all proposed class members.
to. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute an admission by
Defendants that any of their alleged acts or omissions violated Plaintiffs' or any proposed class member's rights under any federal or state law. Nothing contained herein shall be considered a binding agreement in any action other than the above-captioned action.
11. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by the parties of any right they may have to seek the modification, alteration, or de-certification of the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1 )(C) and 23(d)(2), as facts subsequently obtained may warrant.
4 


Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 33 Filed 08/07/13 Page 5 of 6

Dated: New York, New York 
 July 19,2013 


Dated: New York, New York 
 July 19,2013 


ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN

CARY LACHEEN, ESQ. 


Attorney General of the State of New York

MARC COHAN 

MARY R. MANNIX 
 JENNY R. A. PELAEZ 
 Attorney for Plaintiffs

E~


National Center for Law and Economic Justice 
 By: LINDA FANG 


275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 


Assistant Attorney General 


New York, New York 10001 


120 Broadway, 24th Floor 


(212) 633-6967 


New York, New York 10271 


(212) 416-8656 


Gerald S. Hartman 
 Maureen Donahue Hardwick 
 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 
 1500 K Street, N.W. 
 Washington, DC 20005-1209 
 Phone: (202) 842-8800 
 Fax: (202) 842-8465 


Dated: New York, New York 
 July 19,2013 

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO 
 Corporation Counsel 
 Attorney for City. Defendants
,/

OfCounsel for Plaintiffs

Michael P. Daly 
 Nicholas S. Feltham 
 Joshua M. Link 
 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 
 One Logan Square, Suite 2000 
 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6999 
 Phone: (215) 988-2700 
 Fax: (2]5) 988-2757 


~sfant Corporation Counsel 

00 Church Street
New York, New York 10007 
 (212) 356-2082 


OfCounsel for Plaintiffs

SO ORDERED, this __ day of

2013.

HaN. THOMAS P. GRIESA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ~ 
 5 


Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 33 Filed 08/07/13 Page 6 of 6

Dated: New York, New York July 19, 2013
Cfb?1 lo. c· h~_/
CARY ILACHEEN, ESQ. MARC COHAN MARY R. MANNIX JENNY R. A. PELAEZ AttorneyJor Plaintiffs National Center for Law and Economic Justice 
 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite] 506 
 New York, New York 10001 
 (212) 633-6967 


Dated: New York, New York July 19,2013
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorneyfor State Defendants
By: LINDA FANG Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 1027] (212) 416-8656 


Gerald S. Hartman 
 Maureen Donahue Hardwick 
 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 
 1500 K Street, N.W. 
 Washington, DC 20005-1209 
 Phone: (202) 842-8800 
 Fax: (202) 842-8465 


Dated: New York, New York July 19,2013
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel Attorney Jor City DeJendants

OfCounselJar Plaintiffs
Michael P. Daly 
 Nicholas S. Fe1tham 
 Joshua M. Link 
 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 
 One Logan Square, Suite 2000 
 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6999 
 Phone: (215) 988-2700 
 Fax: (215) 988-2757 

9rCounselfor Plaintiffs

By: JONATHAN PINES 
 Assistant Corporation Counsel 
 100 Church Street 
 New York, New York 10007 
 (212) 356-2082 


I­ (j . SO ORDERED,
this 7~aYO~13.
~p
HON. THOMAS P. GRJESA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 


 
 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 8

G n.uoo., j

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MEGAN RAFFERTY, DEBORAH HAYNES, LEASON JACOB, and DIANA GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

No. 13-CV-1410 (TPG)

v.

ROBERT DOAR, in his capacity as its Commissioner ofthe New York City Human Resources Administration;
KRISTIN PROUD, in her capacity as Commissioner ofthe New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance;

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT FOR FEES AND COSTS

NIRAV SHAH, M.D., in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health;

the NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION;

the NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE; and

the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Defendants.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Megan Rafferty, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, and Diana Gray (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and of a class of similarly situated individuals who are blind or seriously visually impaired, who are applicants for and

1

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 8
recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medical Assistance benefits, and who reside in New York City (the "Complaint");
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs asserted claims against the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA" and "City Defendant"); Steven Banks, as the Commissioner ofHRA ("Commissioner Banks"); the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance ("OTDA" and "State Defendant"); Samuel D. Roberts, as Commissioner of OTDA; the New York State Department of Health ("DOH" and "State Defendant"); and Howard Zucker, M.D., as Commissioner of DOH (collectively "Defendants")1;
WHEREAS, the Court certified a class of Plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) ("Class Plaintiffs"), and appointed National Center for Law and Economic Justice, Inc. and Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP as counsel for Class Plaintiffs ("Class Counsel");
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2015, the Court so-ordered the Stipulation and Order of Settlement ("Stipulation and Order of Settlement"), which reflected the settlement entered into by the parties;
WHEREAS, Class Plaintiffs and Defendants now seek to resolve the issue of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action from the beginning of time through the date that this Stipulation and Order of Settlement for Fees and Costs ("Fees Stipulation") is so-ordered by the Court, except as set forth below, without further proceedings on terms and conditions just and fair to all parties;
1 Steven Banks, Samuel D. Roberts, and Howard Zucker are the successors in office to Robert Doar, as Commissioner ofHRA, Kristen Proud, as Commissioner ofOTDA, and Nirav Shah, M.D., as Commissioner of DOH, respectively, and thus are automatically substituted as parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)(l ).
2

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 8
WHEREAS, the parties are entering into this Fees Stipulation solely for the purpose of settling the disputes between them concerning attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements and to avoid further litigation, and without the Defendants admitting any fault or liability; and
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Class Plaintiffs and Defendants, as represented below, as follows:
1. State Defendants agree to pay the sum of $300,000.00 to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements in or arising from this action.
2. City Defendant agrees to pay the sum of $300,000.00 to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements in or arising from this action.
3. Payments of the amounts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Fees Stipulation shall be accepted in full settlement of any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements that Class Plaintiffs have incurred in connection with this action from the beginning of time through the date this Fees Stipulation is so-ordered by the Court, except for that expressly set forth and reserved in paragraph 4 herein.
4. Nothing in this Fees Stipulation shall preclude Class Plaintiffs from seeking to recover for reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in connection with either the work necessary and appropriate to secure the Court's approval of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 performed subsequent to May 13, 2015 or to monitor Defendants' compliance with the terms of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement.
5. Payment shall be made by delivering checks, for the amounts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 herein, payable to the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506, New York, NY 1000 I.
3

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 8
6. Payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 1 is subject to the approval of all appropriate New York State officials in accordance with New York Public Officers Law § 17(3)(a). In the event such approval is denied, counsel for State Defendants shall so notify Class Counsel within five (5) days of the disapproval. In the event of such disapproval, Class Counsel shall have ninety (90) days from such notice within which to make a motion to the Court seeking from State Defendants attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements.
7. Class Counsel shall execute and deliver to counsel for State Defendants any and all documents and information necessary to effectuate payment, which includes any requisite payment vouchers.
8. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel shall execute and deliver to City Defendants' attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, signed releases for every individual named Plaintiff on behalf of the class and law firm who has any claim for fees in this action, based on the terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 above. The payment set forth in paragraph 2 is subject to and conditioned on delivery of such documents to City Defendants' undersigned attorney.
9. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree that neither Defendants, the State and City of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), nor any oftheir officials, employees or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, shall be responsible for any liens or claims of any kind (including, but not limited to, any and all workers' compensation, tax, or child support liens), whether known or unknown, that may attach to the payments set forth in this Fees Stipulation. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel shall have no claim, right, or cause of action against Defendants, the State and City of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments and
4

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 5 of 8
subdivisions thereof), and any of their officials, employees or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, on account of such liens or claims, and agree that they will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Defendants, the State and City of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments and subdivisions thereof), and any of their officials, employees or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, for the satisfaction of any such liens or claims.
I0. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel agree that any taxes, or interest, or penalties on taxes, on the payments set forth in paragraphs I and 2 herein shall be the sole and complete responsibility of Class Counsel, and that Class Counsel shall have no claim, right or cause of action against Defendants, or the State and City of New York on account of any and all such taxes, interest, or penalties.
1I . In the event payment of the amounts recited in paragraphs I and 2 above are not made within ninety (90) days after the entry on the Court's docket of a so-ordered copy of this Fees Stipulation and the receipt of all documents and information required under paragraphs 7 and 8 herein, interest shall accrue on the outstanding principal balance at the statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 196I, beginning on the ninety-first (9Ist) day.
12. In consideration for these payments, Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, on their own behalf and on behalf of the respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of themselves and on behalf of future Class Plaintiffs, hereby jointly and severally release Defendants, the State and City of New York, and any present or former employees, agents, officials, departments, agencies, representatives and directors, their successors and assigns and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and transferees, and each of them, from any and all liability, claims, or
5

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 6 of 8
rights of action for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, in or arising from this action, accrued or incurred from the beginning of time through the date that this Fees Stipulation is soordered by the Court, except for that expressly set forth and reserved in paragraph 4 herein, and this Fees Stipulation shall be deemed a release to that effect.
13. Nothing in this Fees Stipulation shall be deemed to be an agreement or an admission by Defendants as to the reasonableness of the number of hours spent or the particular hourly rates claimed by Class Counsel or that Class Plaintiffs will be entitled to any attorneys' fees, costs or disbursements in connection with this action in the future and Defendants do not waive any defenses to any application by Class Plaintiffs therefor.
14. Nothing in this Fees Stipulation shall be construed as an admission or acknowledgment of liability whatsoever by Defendants regarding any of the allegations made by Class Plaintiffs in the Complaint. The agreement set forth in this Fees Stipulation does not reflect the positions of the parties in any other judicial or administrative proceeding. In addition, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a custom, policy, or practice of Defendants, the State ofNew York or any of its agencies.
15. This Fees Stipulation has no precedential value or effect whatsoever and is inadmissible in any other action or proceeding as evidence or for any other purpose, except in an action or proceeding to enforce this Fees Stipulation.
16. This Fees Stipulation embodies the entire agreement of the parties in this matter and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Fees Stipulation regarding the subject matter of the instant proceedings, other than that set forth in the Stipulation and Order of Settlement, shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein.
6

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 7 of 8

I7. All parties to this Fees Stipulation have participated in its dratling; consequently, any ambiguity shall not be construed for or against any party.
I8. If any date or period of time described herein falls or ends on a public holiday or on u weekend, the date or period of time shall be extended to the next business day.
19, This Fees Stipulation is final and binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns.
20. This Fees Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, and a signature received by facsimile or email shall be deemed valid for all purposes.

Daled:

New York, New York
December i•'0 , 2015

Greg Bass Senior Attorney National Center for Law and Economic Justice 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, New York 10001 (212) 633-6967
:~@~.·i··'l~ !~
Ore~()

Michael Daly Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 988-2604 michael.daly@dbr.com

\~/!~. B : (/ ~l1.

1 . _---,

y Michael Daly

·

Carolyn E. K.ruk Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street, Room 2-192 New York, New York 10007 (212) 356-0893 ckruk@law.nyc.gov

Bv: (~-\il_,- . .\-·

l
· ..

t -""
-

· Carolyn fCKruk} j;itoJi<i

. I;

Linda Fang

Assistant Attorney General

New York State Attorney Oener~l's Office

120 Broadway, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10271

By.:_~_( )0- : (212) 416-8656

~ linda..fang@ag.ny.gl•vo-

tf.~~ang

-

7

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 63 Filed 12/11/15 Page 8 of 8

SO ORDERED,
t\-
this _ _\ \_ _ day of
Honorable Thomas P. Griesa United States District Judge

.. ,-...,

.

I

.

:lUSDCSDNY

!\DOCUMENT

f!~~

1 i

ELECfRONICALLY FILED
DDOATCE#F:I-LE-D:_?_??.,.._tr3~~-<~

= : ; ; eJ :_:t=l'":;;

:

#

8

 
 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 36 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:13-cv-0141 0-TPG Document 35-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN RAFFERTY, DEBORAH HAYNES, 
 LEASON JACOB, and DIANA GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 


)( 

No. 13-CV-141O (TPG) 


Plaintiffs,

ECF Case

-against-

ROBERT DOAR, in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration; KRISTIN PROUD, in her capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of

PROPOSED ORDER

Temporary and Disability Assistance;

NIRAV SHAH, M.D., in his capacity as its

Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; the NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION; the NEW YORK STATE 
 OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE; and the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 

Defendants.

H~~~~;~~

II

1 ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

:DOC #: 
 I. ;DATE FILED: 12. ;J 013

-----------------------------------------------------------.-------- )(

The Court having held a status conference on November 19,2013, at 4:30 p.m., and the

parties thereafter having submitted an agreement as to the following matters, it is hereby ORDERED

that:

1. In light of the parties' continued efforts to reach a complete resolution of this matter, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief is hereby dismissed without prejudice to its renewal.

2. The parties shall continue to meet and confer on a regular basis to discuss a potential resolution of this action.

3. By January 20,2014 and March 20, 2014, the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court advising on the progress of their negotiations.

4. By May 20, 2014, if no resolution is reached, the parties shall submit a proposed Rule l6(d) Scheduling Order to the Court setting a schedule for all pretrial matters, including a date by which Plaintiffs shall renew their motion

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 36 Filed 12/09/13 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 35-1 Filed 12/02/13 Page 20f2
for preliminary injunctive relief, a briefing schedule on that motion, dates for fact and expert discovery, and a proposed date for a preliminary injunction hearing.
5. If the parties reach an impasse in their settlement negotiations at any time before May 20, 2014, Plaintiffs may notify the Court by letter, and renew Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
SO ORDERED. December<1, 2013 New York, New York
HON. THOMAS P. GRIESA UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 61 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 1

.... . . -.....
......_......~

.,,.. ,.

-~·- ·~~·

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EI..ECC~:~~T{:)~~r~~-~ ~ r~l) I 00USOCSDNY

,.

:...

t"

.. '>t

Lfl_,1_,r·

V
·'"

f'..I
·1 J,L,

ff

RAFFERTY, et al.

I_J)(JC II:
n~:rE FILf:u:

jjf§f.,-s-.

p
_ H

X

-:; '-.· · n s::.t: .;=. , :· ...··--•~ ·... ..- 'a-....~.--.-t~ -;;·•..4~ ·

Plaintiffs, -against-

13 Civ. 1410 (TPG)

DOAR, et al.

Defendants.

X
On October 1, 2015, the court held a fairness hearing and tentatively approved from the bench the parties' proposed stipulation and order of settlement ("the order"). On October 5, 2015-before the court issued a signed version of the order-defendants informed the court that the order should not issue until October 22, 2015, after the 90-day waiting period under 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d) expires. (Dkt. No. 60.) Plaintiffs do no oppose defendants' request that the court delay issuing the order. Accordingly, the court will not issue the order until October 22, 2015.
Dated: New York, New York October 5, 2015

Thomas P. Griesa U.S. District Judge

 
 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MEGAN RAFFERTY, DEBORAH HAYNES, LEASON JACOB, and DIANA GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

No. 13-CV-1410 (TPG)

v.

ROBERT DOAR, in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration;
KRISTIN PROUD, in her capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance;
NIRAV SHAH, M.D., in his capacity as its Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health;
the NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION;

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT
USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT BLECTRONICAILY FILED
DOC#:
DATE fll..E-D-.:_-,-0U.,......fii--~-;;-t=

the NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE; and

the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Defendants.

RECITALS WHEREAS, on March 5, 2013, Plaintiffs Megan Rafferty, Deborah Haynes, Leason Jacob, and Diana Gray (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint on behalfofthemselves and of a class of similarly situated individuals who are blind or seriously visually impaired, who are

1

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 25
applicants for and recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") and Medical Assistance ("Medicaid") benefits, and who reside in New York City (the "Complaint");
WHEREAS Plaintiffs asserted claims against the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA"); Steven Banks, as the Commissioner ofHRA ("Commissioner Banks"); the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance ("OTDA"); Sharon Devine, as Executive Deputy Commissioner of OTDA ("Executive Deputy Commissioner Devine"); the New York State Department of Health ("DOH"); and Howard Zucker, as Acting Commissioner of DOH ("Acting Commissioner Zucker")' (collectively "Defendants");
WHEREAS Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to provide written materials and information about SNAP and Medicaid eligibility in accessible and effective alternative formats to applicants and recipients who are blind or seriously visually impaired;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-797(b); the Due Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV,§ 1; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.YEXEC. LAW§§ 291 et seq.; the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE§ 8-107; and state regulations, 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 303.1;
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2013, upon a joint request ofthe parties, the Court certified a class ofplaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2); and
WHEREAS the parties are entering into this Stipulation and Order of Settlement (the "Stipulation and Order") solely for the purpose of settling the disputes between them and to
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), HRA Commissioner Steven Banks, DOH's Acting Commissioner Howard Zucker, and OTDA's Executive Deputy Commissioner Sharon Devine are automatically substituted as parties for former HRA Commissioner Robert Doar, former DOH Commissioner Nirav Shah, M.D., and former OTDA Commissioner Kristin Proud, respectively.
2

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 25
avoid further litigation, and without the City and State Defendants admitting any fault or liability;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned, that this action is settled, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the following terms and conditions: SECTION I: DEFINITIONS 1. "Applications" refers to the documents made available by the State and City Defendants
to individuals for the purpose of applying to receive or to continue to receive SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits, as identified herein in the respective Sections I of Appendices A, B, and C, including all successors to such documents, if any. 2. "Audio Format" refers to audio files containing audio transcriptions of text documents for use with computers and digital audio players, whether provided through electronic transmission over the internet or on physical media such as compact discs, or other successor technology that Defendants may adopt, pursuant to paragraph 45. 3. "City Defendants" refers to HRA, and to Commissioner Banks and his successors. 4. "Class" refers to the plaintiff class certified by the Court on August 7, 2013, and defined as follows:
All New York City residents who: (1) have visual impairments that substantially limit the major life activity of seeing or otherwise have a visual disability as "disability" is defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (2) are current or future applicants for or recipients of SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits; and (3) need written materials in alternative formats for effective communication regarding SNAP and Medicaid. 5. "Class Counsel" refers to the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
3

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 4 of 25
6. "CNS" refers to the State Defendants' Client Notice System, or any successors thereto. 7. "Communications" refers to any personalized and individualized written notice that is
issued to a Class member by either the State or City Defendants concerning the Class member's SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits or application for SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits. As used herein, a Communication is "issued" by a party when it is published and mailed by the party's employees or contractors in the name of the party. 8. "DAI" refers to the Disability Accommodation Indicator for WMS and FHIS created by OTDA on June 23, 2014. 9. "DAI Implementation Date" refers to July 1, 2016, or the date on which the DAI is made operational, whichever is earlier. 10. "Data Format" refers to electronic versions of text documents accessible to Class members through the use of assistive screen reading software, whether provided through electronic transmission over the internet or on physical media such as compact discs, or other successor technology that Defendants may adopt, pursuant to paragraph 45. 11. "Decision After Fair Hearing" refers to any written administrative decision issued by OTDA's Office of Administrative Hearings on behalf of OTDA or DOH. 12. "Effective Date" refers to the date on which this Stipulation and Order is approved and "so-ordered" by the Court. 13. "eMedNY" is the electronic Medicaid Management System ofNew York State operated by Computer Sciences Corporation, or by any successor vendors, on behalf of DOH. 14. "FHIS" refers to OTDA's Office of Administrative Hearings' Fair Hearings Information System, or any successors thereto.
4

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 5 of 25
15. "Full Implementation Date" refers to the latest of any specific date-certain deadlines set forth in this Stipulation and Order pertaining to any Defendant, or the date on which the obligation corresponding to any such deadline is actually implemented or effectuated by the appropriate Defendant, whichever is earlier.
16. "IVRS" refers to HRA's Interactive Voice Response System. 17. "Large Print" refers to hard copy text documents formatted in 18-point font. 18. "Primary Alternative Formats" refers to the following: (a) Large Print; (b) Audio Format;
and (c) Data Format. 19. "Publications" refers to the non-personalized and non-individualized documents that are
made available to the general public concerning SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits by the State and City Defendants, including instructions to Applications and related informational materials, as identified herein in the respective Sections II of Appendices A, B, and C, and all successors to such documents, if any. 20. "Public-Facing Employees" refers to all employees of any Defendant whose job duties include regularly interacting with Class members and the general public concerning applying for or receiving SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits, and/or fair hearings relating to SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits. 21. "SNAP" refers to the United States Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 22. "SSA" refers to the United States Social Security Administration. 23. "State Defendants" refers to OTDA, Executive Deputy Commissioner Devine and her successors, DOH, and Acting Commissioner Zucker and his successors. 24. "USDA" refers to the United States Department of Agriculture.
5

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 6 of 25
25. "WMS" refers to the OTDA's Welfare Management System, or any successors thereto. SECTION II: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. Revising Applications and Publications 26. OTDA.
a. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall make all Applications available in Large Print and Data Format to local social services districts, and available for download from OTDA's website in Large Print and Data Formats. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall further convert all documents identified in Section I of Appendix A into Audio Format and Braille, and will make such documents available to local social services districts, and available for download from OTDA's website in Audio Format; provided that such converted documents will include appropriate language making clear that the documents are being provided in Audio Format and Braille solely for informational purposes, and that applications must be completed and returned in written, non-alternative format. If OTDA later identifies a document that should have been included as an Application listed in Section I of Appendix A for purposes of this Stipulation and Order, but was not so identified, it shall notify Class Counsel as soon as practicable thereafter, and make the additional Application available in the formats and in the manner set forth above in this subparagraph no later than ninety (90) days following the notification.
b. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall make all Publications available in the Primary Alternative Formats to local social services districts, and available for download from OTDA's website in the Primary Alternative Formats.
6

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 7 of 25
c. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall add language substantially similar to: "Ifyou are blind or seriously visually impaired and need this application in an alternative format, you may request one from your social services district. For additional information regarding the types of formats available and how you can request an application in an alternative format, see the "How to Complete" instruction book (PUB-1301) or www.otda.ny.gov" on or as an addendum to the following: (i) LDSS 4826 (SNAP Recertification and Application); (ii) LDSS 2921(Common Application for SNAP, Medicaid and other benefits); and (iii) LDSS 3174 (Recertification Form for SNAP, Medicaid and other benefits). OTDA shall additionally add similar language to all successors to the foregoing documents, if any.
d. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall add language substantially similar to: "Ifyou are blind or seriously visually impaired, would you like to receive written notices in an alternative format? Yes No. Ifyes, check the type of format you would like: _Large Print;_ Data CD;_ Audio CD;_ Braille, if you assert that none of the other alternative formats will be equally effective for you. If you require another accommodation, please contact your social services district." on or as an addendum to the following: (i) LDSS 4826 (SNAP Recertification and Application); (ii) LDSS 2921(Common Application for SNAP, Medicaid and other benefits); and (iii) LDSS 3174 (Recertification Form for SNAP, Medicaid and other benefits). OTDA shall additionally add similar language to all successors to the foregoing documents, if any.
e. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall add language to the MyBenefits online application for SNAP substantially similar to: "If you are blind or seriously visually
7

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 8 of 25
impaired, would you like to receive written notices in an alternative format? _ Yes _No. If yes, check the type of format you would like: _Large Print;_ Data CD;_ Audio CD;_ Braille, if you assert that none of the other alternative formats will be equally effective for you. If you require another accommodation, please contact your social services district." 27. DOH. a. No later than July 1, 2016, DOH shall make all Applications available in the Primary Alternative Formats to local social services districts, and available for download from DOH's website in Large Print and Data Format. No later than July 1, 2016, DOH shall further convert all documents identified in Section I of Appendix B into Audio Format and Braille, and will make such documents available to local social services districts, and available for download from DOH's website in Audio Format; provided that such converted documents will include appropriate language making clear that the documents are being provided in Audio Format and Braille solely for informational purposes, and that applications must be completed and returned in written, non-alternative format. If DOH later identifies that a document that should have been included as an Application listed in Section I of Appendix B for purposes of this Stipulation and Order, but was not so identified, it shall notify Class Counsel as soon as practicable thereafter, and make the additional Application available in the formats and in the manner set forth above in this subparagraph no later than ninety (90) days following the notification.
8

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 9 of 25
b. No later than July 1, 2016, DOH shall make all Publications available in the Primary Alternative Formats to local social services districts, and available for download from DOH's website in the Primary Alternative Formats.
c. No later than July 1, 2016, DOH shall add language substantially similar to: "If you are blind or seriously visually impaired and need written information in an alternative format, check the type of notice you want to receive from us: _ Standard notice & large print notice; _ Standard notice & data CD notice; _ Standard notice & audio CD notice;_ Standard notice & Braille notice, if you assert that none of the other alternative formats will be equally effective for you. If you require another accommodation, please contact your social services district." as an addendum to the following: (i) DOH 4220 (Access NY application for Medicaid); and (ii) DOH 4282 (Family Planning Benefit Program for Medicaid). DOH shall additionally add similar language to all successors to the foregoing documents, if any.
28. HRA. a. SNAP Applications. If, after the Effective Date, HRA identifies or develops an HRA-specific document that qualifies as an Application utilized in SNAP, it shall notify Class Counsel as soon as practicable and make the Application available in the Primary Alternative Formats, including by download from HRA's website, no later than ninety (90) days following the notification. b. Publications. No later than one-hundred and eighty (180) days after the Effective Date, HRA will make available, including by download from HRA's website, in the Primary Alternative Formats the HRA Publications that pertain to the SNAP and/or Medicaid programs that are identified in Section II of Appendix C. HRA
9

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 10 of 25
Publications concerning instructional materials corresponding to Applications and concerning clients' rights and responsibilities that are developed after the Effective Date will be made available in the Primary Alternative Formats. c. Internet-Based Accessible SNAP Applications- Reengineering Phase I. No later than August 1, 2015, HRA will provide a portal on its website that adheres to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, accessible to clients on personal computers, through which all clients can receive, complete, and submit an application or recertification for SNAP benefits. d. Internet-Based Accessible SNAP-Related Communications Reengineering Phase II. Subject to obtaining the requisite approvals from USDA, no later than December 1, 2016, HRA will make available a portal on its website that adheres to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, accessible to clients on personal computers, by which all SNAP clients can perform the following tasks in connection with participation in SNAP: (i) receive, complete, and submit Periodic Reporting/MidCertification documents; (ii) access Communications issued by HRA to that client; and, (iii) access online account balances and application status information. e. Internet-Based Accessible SNAP-Related Communications- Reengineering Phase Ill. Subject to obtaining the requisite approvals from USDA, no later than December 1, 2017, HRA will make available a portal on its website that adheres to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, accessible to clients on personal computers, by which all SNAP clients can upload supporting documents that the client is required to submit to HRA in connection with participation in SNAP.
10

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 11 of 25
f. Readers. No later than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the Effective Date, HRA shall ensure that a sufficient number of personnel who are able to read effectively, accurately, and impartially using specialized SNAP and Medicaid vocabulary are available in person and via telephone during its regular hours of operation to assist members of the Class in reading, understanding, and completing any Communication it generates or provides to the Class.
g. Notwithstanding the timelines proposed in sub-paragraphs (c)-(e) of paragraph 28, to the extent that the applications and recertification forms described in these subparagraphs are State documents, HRA reserves the right to make these documents available on the web-based portal described in these sub-paragraphs within sixty (60) days of the State Defendants' making these documents available to HRA.
29. Braille. a. No later than July 1, 2016, with respect to any Publication and Communication that OTDA will be making available in a Primary Alternative Format as set forth in paragraphs 26(b) and 32(c), respectively, OTDA shall provide the same in Braille to any member of the Class who requests it and asserts that none of the Primary Alternative Formats will be equally effective for them; b. No later than July 1, 2016, with respect to any Publication and Communication that DOH will be making available in a Primary Alternative Format as set forth in paragraphs 27(b) and 32(d), respectively, DOH shall provide the same in Braille to any member of the Class who requests it and asserts that none of the Primary Alternative Formats will be equally effective for them; and
11

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 12 of 25
c. No later than sixty (60) days after the DAI Implementation Date, HRA will make available in Braille the HRA Applications, Publications and Communications that pertain to the SNAP and/or Medicaid programs that are identified in Appendix C.
B. Identification of Potential Class Members 30. No later than the Effective Date, OTDA and DOH shall separately provide the City
Defendants with updated lists of potential Class members for SNAP and Medicaid, respectively, that OTDA and DOH are able to identify based on then-available information, along with relevant identifying information including upcoming renewal or recertification dates. 31. No later than the Effective Date, OTDA shall provide the SSA with a list of all SNAP recipients in New York State, along with relevant identifying information, and shall make a one-time request to the SSA for information pertaining to all such SNAP recipients' current alternative format preferences as such information is available to the SSA. Within thirty (30) days after receiving any such responsive information from the SSA pursuant to this one-time request, OTDA shall revise its disclosure to the City Defendants as set forth in paragraph 30. C. Additional Changes 32. WMS, FBIS, and CNS Systems. a. As of June 23,2014, OTDA has created in WMS and FHIS a DAI field for the
purpose of recording a Class member's requested alternative format accommodation. By no later than July 1, 2016, OTDA will make the DAI field operational and capable ofbeing populated by Defendants' employees.
12

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 13 of 25
b. No later than July 1, 2016, the State Defendants shall include on all Communications issued through CNS language substantially similar to: "If you are blind or seriously visually impaired and need notices or other written materials in an alternative format (large print, audio or data CD, or Braille), contact your local social services district."
c. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall cause to make the following Communications available in the Primary Alternative Formats for mailing to Class members who request such an alternative format accommodation: (i) notices issued through CNS; (ii) notices concerning mass changes to Class members' SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits issued by OTDA outside ofCNS; (iii) notices concerning a Class member's application for and/or receipt of SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits issued by OTDA; (iv) notices pertaining to fair hearing requests and the scheduling thereof issued through FHIS; (v) Decisions After Fair Hearing concerning SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits; (vi) notices concerning compliance with such Decisions After Fair Hearing issued by OTDA's Office of Administrative Hearings; and (vii) reconsiderations of Decisions After Fair Hearing issued by OTDA's Office of Administrative Hearings.
d. No later than July 1, 2016, DOH shall cause to make the following Communications available in the Primary Alternative Formats for mailing to Class members who request such an alternative format accommodation: (i) notices to terminate, reduce, suspend, or restrict Medicaid benefits issued by DOH through eMedNY, and outside of CNS; and (ii) notices to individuals automatically emolled in Medicaid issued by DOH as a result of an individual's eligibility for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits.
13

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 14 of 25
33. HRA. a. SNAP Recipients. No later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the initial or any revised list of potential Class members from OTDA as set forth in paragraphs 30 and 31, and subject to obtaining the requisite approvals from USDA, HRA shall include those potential members of the Class on the list of SNAP recipients who are eligible to recertify SNAP benefits via HRA's IVRS program into the IVRS. HRA shall offer these individuals and all other potential members of the Class a telephone interview to recertify SNAP benefits, shall call these individuals seven (7) and three (3) days before their recertification dates (the date of the scheduled telephone interview), and shall afford these individuals an opportunity to renew benefits by telephone interview. b. Medicaid Recipients. No later than one-hundred and eighty (180) days after receipt of the list of potential Class members from DOH as set forth in paragraph 30, HRA shall implement protocols to call those potential Class members on the list for whom HRA administers Medicaid benefits, annually, when a renewal is sent, and monthly, for those class members on the list who have surplus income and are eligible for Medicaid with a spend down. For renewals, the telephone call will provide information so that the Class member will be able to contact an HRA staff member who will explain that the Class member needs to renew her benefits, and will offer readers, or home visits, or schedule an appointment at an HRA facility. For Class members, for whom HRA administers Medicaid benefits, who have surplus income and are eligible for Medicaid with a spend down, the telephone call will remind
clients that they must meet their monthly spend down or make a remittance to HRA. For Class members whose renewal determination is deferred, HRA will contact the
14

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 15 of 25
Class member and offer readers, home visits or schedule an appointment at an HRA facility. Given the difficulty of ascertaining the Class size, in the event that the remedy described herein becomes unmanageable due to unanticipated volume, counsel for City Defendants and Plaintiffs agree to meet and confer in an attempt to negotiate an appropriate modification. c. Inputting Preferences. No later than one-hundred and twenty (120) days after the DAI Implementation Date, HRA shall put into place a process for populating the DAI in WMS to record a Class member's stated preferred alternative format accommodation. 34. Nothing contained in this Stipulation and Order shall be construed to relieve a Class member of his or her obligations to provide timely and accurate information, including supporting documentation of eligibility factors, to the State and City Defendants in written, non-alternative formats, where the option for electronic submission of SNAP and/or Medicaid application or recertification materials does not otherwise exist; provided that HRA will allow a Class member to orally relay certain information regarding eligibility requirements to their staff members, as a reasonable accommodation. D. Notice to Relevant Personnel and Local Social Services Districts and Training 35. Notification of Personnel. a. No later than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the State Defendants shall advise all of their relevant personnel, including their Public-Facing Employees, and all local social services districts of this Stipulation and Order, and provide them with a summary of its terms and conditions.
15

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 16 of 25
b. No later than ninety (90) days after the deadlines set forth above in paragraphs 26, 27, and 32, the State Defendants shall advise all of their relevant personnel, including their Public-Facing Employees, and all local social services districts of the changes as they are implemented.
c. No later than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, HRA shall notify all of its relevant personnel, including Public-Facing Employees, about the existence of this Stipulation and Order and provide them with a summary of its terms and conditions.
d. No later than ninety (90) days after the deadlines set forth above in paragraphs 28 and 33, HRA shall advise all of its relevant personnel, including its Public-Facing Employees, of the changes as they are implemented.
36. Training of Personnel. a. No later than July 1, 2016, OTDA shall develop training materials for its PublicFacing Employees that explains the Public-Facing Employees' duties and responsibilities as they relate to members of the Class, consistent with OTDA's obligations pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation and Order; and within sixty (60) days thereafter, OTDA shall (i) train its Public-Facing Employees in accordance with the newly developed training materials as set forth in this paragraph; and (ii) provide Class Counsel with written acknowledgements of the same. OTDA shall subsequently utilize these training materials to train its Public-Facing Employees as appropriate going forward. b. No later than thirty (30) days prior to the deadlines imposed on HRA pursuant to paragraphs 28(a) and (b), 29(c) and 33(a)-(c) of the Stipulation and Order, HRA shall develop training materials for its Public-Facing Employees that explain their
16

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 17 of 25
obligation to administer the SNAP and Medicaid programs as pertains to members of the Class in a manner consistent with the ADA and other statutes cited in the Complaint and HRA's obligations pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation and Order. As applicable, such training materials shall, among other things, impart the importance of identifying and recording information about the accommodation preferences of potential members ofthe Class, and shall explain the current and anticipated resources available to Public-Facing Employees and members ofthe Class with respect to the administration of the SNAP and Medicaid programs for persons who are blind or seriously visually impaired. c. No later than sixty (60) days following the deadlines imposed on HRA pursuant to paragraphs 28(a) and (b), 29(c) and 33(a)-(c) ofthis Stipulation and Order, HRA shall (i) ensure that its Public-Facing Employees have been trained using training materials consistent with this Stipulation and Order; and (ii) provide Class Counsel with written acknowledgements of same. HRA shall use training materials consistent with this Stipulation and Order to train its subsequently hired Public-Facing Employees. SECTION III: CONTINUING JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT A. Periodic Reporting 37. No later than thirty (30) days after receiving responsive information from the SSA pursuant to the one-time request set forth in paragraph 31 herein, and subject to SSA approval, OTDA shall provide Class Counsel with a report containing aggregate information obtained from the SSA setting forth the number of potential Class members and the breakdown of such Class members' categories of requested alternative format accommodations.
17

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 18 of 25
38. Beginning July 1, 2016, and continuing until the termination ofjurisdiction as set forth in paragraph 41 herein, on a quarterly basis, the State Defendants shall provide to Class Counsel reports setting forth the names, and case numbers of Class members that have been identified to-date and the Class members' requested alternative format accommodations.
39. No later than forty-five (45) days after the Effective Date, counsel for Defendants shall be available to meet with Class Counsel to provide an update about the progress in effectuating the terms of this Stipulation and Order, and shall be available to meet with Class Counsel every ninety (90) days thereafter to provide further progress updates, as necessary, until July 1, 2016.
B. Dismissal of Claims and Enforcement 40. As of the Effective Date, all claims contained in the Complaint, with the exception of
those specifically reserved herein pursuant to paragraphs 41 and 42, shall be dismissed with prejudice. 41. The jurisdiction of this Court shall terminate at the conclusion of twelve (12) months following the Full Implementation Date, except that if Plaintiffs move pursuant to paragraph 42 herein, jurisdiction shall continue until (a) any such motion is decided; (b) if any such motion is decided favorably for Plaintiffs, until such time as directed by the Court; or (c) such time as may be extended upon agreement by the parties in modification of this Stipulation and Order. 42. During the twelve (12) months following the Full Implementation Date, if Plaintiffs believe that one or more Defendants has not complied with the terms of this Stipulation and Order, Class Counsel shall notify Defendants' counsel in writing of the nature and
18

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 19 of 25
specifics of the alleged failure(s) to comply at least thirty (30) days before any motion is made regarding this Stipulation and Order. Such written notice shall be accompanied by copies of any documents or data relied upon by Plaintiffs for the claimed violations. Unless otherwise resolved, the parties' counsel shall meet within the thirty (30) day period following such notice to Defendants' counsel to discuss the claimed violations and possible solutions. If no resolution is reached within thirty (30) days following written notice of the claimed violation, Plaintiffs may move this Court for an order for all appropriate relief only as against the noncompliant Defendant(s), and only as to the specific provision for which non-compliance is timely alleged by Plaintiffs. 43. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to comply with the terms of this Stipulation and Order for purposes of any motion contemplated in paragraphs 41 and 42 herein unless Plaintiffs can establish that Defendants' alleged failures to comply were not de minimis or isolated, but rather were substantial and sufficiently frequent or widespread as to be systemic in nature. 44. Following the termination of the Court's jurisdiction as set forth in paragraph 41 herein, this Stipulation and Order shall be deemed unenforceable as to the respective Defendants. C. Meet and Confer Regarding New Technologies 45. If any party identifies a newly developed or significantly improved alternative format for providing information to the members of the Class, that party may, but shall not be obligated to, notify counsel for all other parties in writing. No later than ninety (90) days after such notice, the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to discuss the newly identified alternative format(s), and the feasibility of utilizing it as a means of communicating with the Class. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this
19

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 20 of 25
paragraph shall be construed to be an agreement or an admission by any Defendant that any such newly identified alternative format constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, Section 504, or any relevant state or local statute or regulation. Nor shall anything contained in this paragraph be deemed to obligate any Defendant to provide any such newly identified alternative format to any members of the Class. SECTION IV: ATTORNEYS' FEES 46. The parties shall negotiate in good faith Plaintiffs' entitlement to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements to be awarded to Class Counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205 for all work through and including the execution ofthe Stipulation and Order. Upon the execution of this Stipulation and Order by counsel for all parties, Class Counsel shall forward to counsel for Defendants, no later than one business day thereafter, Class Counsel's time and billing records and statements of costs incurred in this action for which recovery is sought, so the parties may proceed to negotiate the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. 47. Any agreement as to attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements that is reached by the parties ("Provisional Agreement") is subject to the approval by all appropriate State officials, in accordance with N.Y. Public Officers Law§ 17 (hereinafter, "State Approval"), and by the Comptroller of the City ofNew York pursuant to General Municipal Law§ 50-k (hereinafter, "City Approval"). Class Counsel agrees to execute and deliver all necessary and appropriate vouchers and other documentation requested with respect to obtaining such approvals and effectuating payment. a. If State Approval and City Approval of the amount of attorneys' fees, costs, and
disbursements are obtained before such publication ofthe Rule 23(e) notice as the
20

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 21 of 25
Court may order, the parties shall file a proposed amended Stipulation and Order including the amount of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements as to which City and State Approvals have been obtained. b. If State Approval and City Approval of the amount of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements are obtained after the publication of a Rule 23(e) notice ordered by the Court, then the terms of the settlement of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements will be embodied in a separate stipulation that will be forwarded to the Court to be "so-ordered." c. In the event that State Approval or City Approval is not obtained, counsel for the City or State Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs' counsel within five (5) business days of the disapproval. Disapproval of the Provisional Agreement by the approving authorities of either State or City Defendants, or both of them, shall render the terms of the Provisional Agreement null, void, and of no further force and effect. 48. Within thirty (30) days of either (i) the declaring of an impasse by a party that no agreement on the amount of Plaintiffs' entitlement to attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements may be reached despite the parties' good faith efforts, or (ii) Plaintiffs' receipt of notification that State Approval or City Approval has been denied, Class Counsel may make an application to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205 for all work through and including the execution of the Stipulation and Order; and Defendants' counsel may oppose any such application.
21

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 22 of 25
SECTION IV: GENERAL PROVISIONS 49. Nothing contained in this Stipulation and Order shall be deemed to have created any
rights or entitlements to administrative or judicial proceedings for any individual which do not otherwise exist pursuant to the relevant New York State statutes or regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no provision of this Stipulation and Order shall be deemed to infringe upon a Class member's ability to seek individual relief through an administrative hearing or a judicial proceeding, including but not limited to a proceeding brought pursuant to article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, pertaining to the Class member's SNAP and/or Medicaid benefits, or a Defendant's alleged failure to provide a Class member's requested reasonable accommodation under the ADA, provided that the Class member does not seek to assert any claims included in the Complaint, or otherwise to challenge the contents of this Stipulation and Order. 50. In the event of any change in federal statute or regulation, or state or local statute or regulation, that any Defendant believes changes his or her responsibilities pursuant to this Stipulation and Order, such Defendant shall so notify all other parties in writing and the parties shall attempt to come to an agreement as to any modifications of the Stipulation and Order that are warranted by any such changes in federal, state or local law. If no resolution is reached within thirty (30) days following the written notice, Defendants may move this Court for an order for all appropriate relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other applicable rule or procedure. 51. This Stipulation and Order shall have no precedential value or effect whatsoever and shall not be cited, used or admissible in this or any other action or proceeding as evidence or for any other purpose, except in an action or proceeding to enforce the terms of this
22

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 23 of 25
Stipulation and Order, or to assert that Class members are bound by the terms of this settlement. 52. This Stipulation and Order embodies the entire agreement of the parties in this matter and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation and Order regarding the subject matter of the instant proceedings, shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein. 53. All parties to this Stipulation and Order have participated in its drafting such that any ambiguity contained therein shall not be construed for or against any party. 54. The parties warrant and represent that the persons executing this Stipulation and Order are duly authorized to do so. 55. This Stipulation and Order shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and each of their heirs, successors, assigns, executors and legal representatives. 56. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern the computation of any time period specified by this Stipulation and Order. 57. This Stipulation and Order may be executed by facsimile or email signatures in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same valid and binding agreement of the parties.
23

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 24 of 25

58. Any notice, report, or communication required by or made pursuant to this Stipulation

and Order, other than notices sent to individual members of the Class, shall be sent by

electronic mail, or by first class mail upon request, to counsel at the addresses specified

below.

To Plaintiffs:

Greg Bass Senior Attorney National Center for Law and Economic Justice 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, New York 10001 bass@nclej .org

Michael Daly Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 michael.daly@dbr.com

To City Defendants:

To State Defendants:

Carolyn Kruk Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street, Room 2-192 New York, New York 10007 ckruk@law.nyc.gov

Linda Fang Assistant Attorney General New York State Attorney General's Office 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 linda. fang@ag.ny .gov

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

24

Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 62 Filed 10/23/15 Page 25 of 25 Case 1:13-cv-01410-TPG Document 53-1 Filed 05/21/15 Page 25 of 30

S9. Any patty may change the above designated addressees or addresses by written notice to the other patties. A copy of such notice shall be iikd with the Clerk of this Court.

Dated:

1--' New York, New York
May 2015

Greg Bass

Senior Attorney

National Center for Law and Economic Justice

275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506

Nt:w York. New York lOOOI

(212) 633-6967

bass@nclej.org ~

/(5 By: -----. -~'-·"-

-·---

Greg a

~ I\

Carolyn Kru Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street, Room 2-192 New York, New York 10007 (212) 356-0893 ckruk@law.nyc.gov
By: ~~ \- k . - l·~.•..

Carolyn h 1\.:'

Michael Daly Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191 OJ (215) 988-2604 m ichael.daly@dbr.com
By: M~i/~/e_;~-~6-~~ly-~- -

Linda Fang

Assistant Attorney General

New York State Attorney General's Of!ice

120 Broadway, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10271

(212) 416-8656

linda. fang By:

\\-~ ____
5~tsCJ

SO ORDERED.
this . _:2:::j.__ day of

2015.

Honorable Thomas P. Griesa United States District Judge