Nature of Claims: This action alleges that New York State Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) routinely deprive appellants of a truly fair hearing, in vio¬lation of due process and federal statutes and regulations, by engaging in a pattern and practice of obstructing or denying their right to (1) to have the hearing officer explain the pro¬ceedings and develop the record; (2) present their case, includ¬ing the right to testify, call witnesses, obtain and present docu¬ments, access adverse or exculpatory evidence, subpoena wit¬nesses, and confront and cross-examine witnesses; and (3) to issue decisions based on all relevant evidence from the hearing and with reasons for credibility findings. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that State ALJs routinely sanction the use of inadequate affidavits of mailing of notices by HRA.
Background: In December 1999, the court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that the availability of “post-deprivation remedies” (like the possibility of bringing an “Article 78 proceeding” in state court) does not require dismissal of the action. The court also held that plaintiffs’ federal causes of action are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that the sections of the Food Stamp and Medicaid Acts on which plaintiffs rely may be enforced by them. Finally, the court rejected the State’s contention that the court should “abstain” from hearing the case; held that plaintiffs’ allegations state a claim on which relief may be granted; and held that the Commissioner of the New York City welfare agency (HRA) is not an indispensable party. Meachem v. Wing, 77 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Current Status: On April 20, 2005, the court approved a settlement certifying a plaintiff class and providing for training and monitoring regarding the conduct of fair hearings. The settlement permits the plaintiffs to reinstate the action at the end of the term of the stipulation if evidence adduced during the monitoring period indicates a pattern of continuing violations. Pursuant to the settlement, new fair hearings have been held for the 12 named plaintiffs and intervenors. All 12 have received favorable fair hearing decisions. The plaintiffs are monitoring the conduct of fair hearings pursuant to the settlement agreement.
No. Persons Affected: Approximately 10,000
Reported Decisions: Meachem v. Wing, 77 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Meachem v. Wing, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10457 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2000); Meachem v. Wing, 227 F.R.D. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Meachem v. Wing, 227 F.R.D. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)