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

Welfare Law Centerfailure to provide multilingual services may constitute discrimination on the basis of nationalorigin. 62 Using Title VI to attack restrictive eligibility rules. A pending case before HHS’Office of Civil Rights 63 challenges New Jersey’s policy of denying a benefit increase for a childborn to a person receiving AFDC (also known as a “family cap”). In January 1995, the OCRissued a preliminary finding that no intentional discrimination had occurred, but it reservedjudgment as to the claim that the policy has a disparate effect on racial and ethnic minorities untilit received data following implementation of the policy. The case arose in conjunction with anattempt to overturn a waiver granted to New Jersey for this policy by the Secretary of HHS. InC.K. v. Shalala, 64 the federal appellate court rejected all of plaintiff’s claims, including statutoryand constitutional claims. A state court challenge raising state constitutional claims wassubsequently filed. It is pending.· Employment Discrimination Laws.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals in job training, jobplacement and work environments from discrimination by employers and employment agencieswith 15 or more employees based on race, color, religion, national origin or sex. This protectionextends to sexual and racial harassment, discrimination which affects minorities or womenintentionally or unintentionally, and discrimination based on pregnancy. As discussed above, akey question that will arise is whether welfare work program participants will be covered underthe law, and according to experts, many courts have construed Title VII liberally to coverindividuals who are not in a traditional employment relation. 65In the Spring of 1998, the Welfare Law Center and NOW Legal Defense and EducationFund filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of aworkfare worker who was sexually harassed at her TANF-assigned work site. The ongoingharassment was so severe, the worker left her workfare assignment. The EEOC has yet to reacha determination in the case.May 1999⋅ 24 ⋅