A Victory in the Case of Lovely H
Congratulations to the team of Kevin Ashby, Carolyn Walker-Diallo and Scott Edelman, and to case managers Stacy Hubbard and Marina Salazar, on an important initial victory in the federal pro bono case entitled Lovely H. v. Eggleston. On Tuesday, December 13, 2006 Milbank and Legal Aid obtained a key temporary restraining order, preventing implementation of a City plan that would seriously disadvantage disabled New Yorkers. Lovely H, styled as a class action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeks to vindicate the rights of 45,000 disabled recipients of public assistance.
In New York City, every public assistance recipient is assigned to a caseworker at a “job center”; there are thirty such centers dispersed throughout the five boroughs. The New York City Human Resources Administration, the agency that administers public assistance, plans to centralize the cases of disabled recipients at three centers, denominated as “hub centers.” If implemented, that decision would mean that the majority of disabled recipients would have to travel significantly longer and more arduous routes than they were previously required to travel. There is no hub center in Staten Island or Queens, for example, and all disabled recipients residing in those boroughs would be required to travel to Manhattan or Brooklyn to visit their caseworkers and attend mandatory appointments. Most of these clients have disabilities and limitations that make travel especially difficult, if not impossible. Far from satisfying the ADA’s requirement that a public service provider reasonably accommodate disabled persons, the City has erected barriers that make it more difficult for disabled clients to obtain services, as compared to similarly situated non-disabled clients.
The City had agreed to a temporary restraining order, delaying further implementation of its plan until mid-December. After the City refused to continue to withhold implementation of its plan while the issue was litigated, plaintiffs sought extension of the temporary restraining order enjoining the City from transferring any more disabled clients to “hub centers.” On Tuesday, Southern District Judge Laura Taylor Swain heard argument and clearly intimated that she was inclined to extend the TRO. As a result, the City withdrew its objection, and the TRO was issued, preventing further implementation of the City’s plan until the determination of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion. The preliminary injunction motion is expected to be heard in early 2006.