Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/359-f-3d-83-594926386
Timestamp: 2020-07-09 01:21:34
Document Index: 548841590

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2000', '§ 601', '§ 607', '§ 607', '§ 607', '§ 335', '§ 342']

359 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 2004), 02-6102(L), United States v. City of New York - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 594926386
Docket Nº: 02-6102(L), 02-6112(L), 02-6122, 02-6124, 02-6126, 02-7405(CON).
Party Name: UNITED STATES of America, Norma Colon, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Maria E. Gonzalez, Tammy Auer, Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Jason Turner, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration, George Santiago, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Ap
359 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 2004)
CITY OF NEW YORK, Jason Turner, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration, George Santiago, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 02-6102(L), 02-6112(L), 02-6122, 02-6124, 02-6126, 02-7405(CON).
Argued: Feb. 5, 2003.
Before: JACOBS and POOLER, Circuit Judges, GLEESON, District Judge.[*]
We are asked to determine whether welfare recipients obliged to participate in New York City's Work Experience Program ("WEP") are employees within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and thus entitled to Title VII's protections
against sexual and racial harassment. Applying this circuit's test for the existence of an employer-employee relationship, we conclude that the district court erred by finding as a matter of law on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that plaintiffs are not employees. We also conclude that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which requires participation in certain work activities including programs like WEP as a condition of the receipt of welfare benefits, does not evince an intent to deprive these workers of Title VII's civil rights protections. Our conclusion accords with the conclusions reached by the federal agencies charged with enforcing Title VII and PRWORA. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
The purpose of the new program is "to increase the flexibility of States in operating a program designed to" meet certain goals including "end[ing] the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage." 42 U.S.C. § 601(a). As a condition of receiving TANF grants, states must ensure that certain percentages of families participate in work activities. 42 U.S.C. § 607(a). "Work activities" include: unsubsidized employment; subsidized private sector employment; subsidized public sector employment; work experience; on-the-job training; job search and job readiness assistance; community service programs; vocational education; job skills training; education related to employment (for individuals without high school degrees or high school equivalency certificates); secondary school attendance or study leading to an equivalency certificate; and provision of child care services for individuals participating in community service programs. 42 U.S.C. § 607(d)(1)-(12). When an individual refuses to participate in a work activity, PRWORA requires the state to "(A) reduce the amount of assistance otherwise payable to the family pro rata (or more, at the option of the State)...; or (B) terminate such assistance, subject to such good cause and other exceptions as the State may establish." 42 U.S.C. § 607(e)(1). Section 608(c) provides that such a reduction "shall not be construed to be a reduction in any wage paid to the individual."
(1) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.)
(2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).
(3) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)
(4) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.)
New York has implemented PRWORA through Chapter 55 of the Social Services Law. However, New York's work requirements apply not only to families with children, as does TANF--the federal welfare program created by PRWORA--but also to households without dependent children that consequently receive only state funding. N.Y. Soc. Serv. L. § 335-b(1). A recipient who refuses to engage in a work activity incurs a pro rata reduction of his household's grant. NY Soc. Serv. L. § 342(2), (3).
During spring 1998, Soto escalated his behavior to inappropriate touching. Not only did Soto ignore Auer's objections, but he also warned her that he could terminate her WEP assignment. Auer complained to the Sanitation Department's Staten Island borough commissioner, who took no action. After she complained to the department's Manhattan office, she was transferred to a different facility. However, Soto, who continued to have supervisory responsibility for Auer, went to her new work site and screamed at her. He also instructed Auer's immediate supervisor not to give her any work to do. Shortly thereafter Auer quit because of the way she had been treated. She filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which after finding reasonable cause to believe her allegations were true, referred her charge to the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). See 42 U.S.C. §...