The Role of the Courts in Securing Welfare Rights and ...

Welfare Law Center· Workers’ Compensation - Many states have incorporated workers’ compensationprotections directly into their workfare statutes. In addition, several important court decisionshave held that workfare workers are covered by workers’ compensation protections. 43· Health and Safety Protections - Some states legislatively provide that workfareworkers are entitled to the exact same protections as regular workers. For example, New YorkState now provides that workfare workers must be provided the exact same coverage under theNew York Public Employee Health and Safety Act as regular public employees. In othersituations, protections may be secured under the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act(OSHA). However, one should be aware OSHA protections do not extend to persons workingfor public employers such as state, county, or local agencies. In most instances where there areextensive federal or state statutory health and safety protections, violations can only be pursuedby making a complaint to the agencies charged with enforcement.Resort to litigation may provide some relief to welfare recipients exposed to horrendousworking conditions in other situations. Two court decisions in this area are instructive. InCapers v. Giuliani, a class of workfare workers assigned to street cleaning duties in New YorkCity challenged the lack of adequate work place health and safety protections under state welfarelaw provisions requiring workfare placements to be made only to sites that comply with workerprotection requirements. The plaintiffs claimed that they were denied access to 1) toilets,washing facilities, and drinking water; 2) personal protective equipment; 3) traffic safetyequipment; and 4) training and supervision. In August 1997, the Capers court certified a classand entered a preliminary injunction enjoining assignment of any class member to a workfareassignment until the City provides necessary health and safety protections, including access totoilets and potable water, gloves and face masks, and training regarding potential worksitehazards. However, the order was vacated after the state passed legislation extended publicemployee workplace protections to workfare workers. 44In Ramos v. County of Madera, 45 the California Supreme Court held that AFDCrecipients, assigned to pick crops in exchange for their benefits, could challenge the violation ofMay 1999⋅ 18 ⋅