# Appendix — Philbrook v. Glodgett

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0425%3A01

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1975
- **Citation:** 421 U.S. 707

## Text

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

1974
Mar. 1

Mar. 1

Mar. 1

Mar. 1
Mar. 1

Mar. 15
Apr. 9

Apr. 19

Filed Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law in opposition
to Defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the
judgment.

In open Court, hearing on Defendants’ motion to
stay. Richard Kohn, Esq. for Plaintiffs; David L.

Kalib, Esq. for State; William Gray, Esq. for Gov-
ernment.

Statements made to Court by Mr. Kalib, followed

by Mr. Gray who joins in motion to stay.
Statements made by Mr. Kohn.

Ordered: Motion denied as to individual plaintiffs;

motion granted as to class plaintiffs.—Parties to
submit written Order for Court’s approval by
March 6, 1974.

Filed Stay of Judgment. Copy mailed to attorneys.

Filed Deft. Philbrook’s Notice of Appeal to Supreme
Court of the U.S. Mailed copy to Richard S. Kohn,
Richard A. Axelrod, Esq. & Nancy F. Kaufman,
Esq.; Kathleen M. Mitchell, Esq.; David L. Kalib,
Esq.; U.S. Attorney; Court Reporter; Judge
Oakes, Holden & Coffrin; and Clerk, Supreme
Court, Washington, D.C.

Filed Government’s (for Caspar W. Weinberger
etc.) Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court of the
U.S. Mailed copy to Richard S. Kohn, Esq.; Rich-
ard A. Axelrod, Esq.; & Nancy E. Kaufman, Esq.;
Kathleen M. Mitchell, Esq.; David L. Kalib, Esq.;
U.S. Atty.; Court Reporter; Judge Oakes, Holden
& Coffrin; and Clerk, Supreme Court, Washing-
ton, D.C.

June 17 Mailed Record on Appeal to Clerk, Supreme Court

of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Notified attys.

gare RANE Bitar mneneney

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Civil Action No. 6550
[Filed March 6, 1972]

JEAN GLODGETT and DEANNA GLODGETT, individually
and on behalf of their minor child, TINA GLODGETT

ROGER PERCY, SR. and ROSAMOND PERCY, individually
and on behalf of their minor children, SHARON, SHEILA,
ROGER, MARY, MATTHEW and CHARON PERCY, and all
others similarly situated

vs.

JOSEPH BETIT, individually and as Commissioner of the
Vermont Department of Social Welfare; ELLIOTT
RICHARDSON, individually and as Secretary of the De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, DE-
FENDANTS

I. COMPLAINT

This is a suit for a declaratory judgment that 42 U.S.C.
§ 607 and Vermont Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3) vio-
late the due process and equal protection clauses of the
fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States
Constitution insofar as they render children of unem-
ployed fathers ineligible to receive ANFC benefits during
any week that the father is receiving unemployment com-
pensation under state unemployment compensation law.
The action against the Commissioner of Social Welfare
is based on 42 U.SC. § 1983. Plaintiffs also seek damages
and injunctive reNef against the Commissioner of the
Vermont Department of Social Welfare and relief in the
nature of mandamus as against the Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

8
II. JURISDICTION
A. Jurisdiction against the Commissioner of the Ver-

mont Department of Social Welfare is invoked pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 13843(3)-(4) because it is brought to re-

dress the deprivation under color of state law of a right

secured by the fourteenth amendment, and by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1831 because it arises under the Constitution and the
amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

B. Jurisdiction against the defendant Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare is im-
parted by 28 U.S.C. § 1861 and 28 U.S.C. § 1881 be-
cause plaintiffs request relief in the nature of mandamus
and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

A

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs ho, Glodgett and Deanne Glodgett are
citizens of the United States and the State of Vermont
and residents of Orleans, Vermont. Plaintiff Tina Glod-
gett sues by her parents and next friends.

B. Plaintiffs Roger and Rosamond Percy are citizens
of the United States and the State of Vermont and resi-
dents of Orleans, Vermont. Plaintiffs Sheila, Sharon,
Roger, Mary, Matthew and Charon Percy are minor
children and sue by their parents and next friends.

C. Defendant Richardson is the Secretary of the United
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 602(b), he is authorized to
approve state plans for the implementation of ANFC.

D. Defendant Betit is Commissioner of the Vermont
Department of Social Welfare. Pursuant to 33 V.S.A.
§ 2505, he is the chief administrator and executive officer.
Through his agents, the plaintiffs and the class they
represent have been denied ANFC benefits.

E. On December 16, 1971, Mr. Glodgett applied for
ANFC and was accepted. On December 20, 1971, the
family received its first check in the amount of $93.00.
Thereafter, they began receiving the full monthly benefit
of $239.00. On January 10, 1972, Mr. Glodgett began
receiving unemployment compensation from New Hamp-

9

shire in the amount of $14.00 per week. He has been"
notified by letter dated January 12, 1972, by the Vermont
Department of Social Welfare that his ANFC benefits
will be terminated beginning February 16, 1972 because
he is receiving unemployment compensation.

F. Plaintiff Roger Percy was employed as a trucker
by Orlando Construction Company until December 4,
1971, when he was laid off. He applied for ANFC-UF
on December 6, 1971. On December 10, 1971, he began

drawing unemployment compensation in the amount of

$43.00 per week. His ANFC application was denied on
December 20, 1971 for the sole reason that he was re-
ceiving unemployment compensation. If he was eligible
for ANFC he would draw $410 per month for his family.
His monthly unemployment is approximately $172.00.
To help him meet expenses, he has had to rely on Gen-
eral Assistance.

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. $§ 606 and 607)

’ provides for assistance to needy families with dependent

children if the children have been deprived of parental
support or care due to death, abandonment, physical or
mental incapacity or unemployment of a parent.

2. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security
Act provides that assistance under the aid to families
with dependent children program for unemployed parents
cannot be granted if the father is eligible for or receiv-
ing unemployment compensation. Aid must be denied for
any week in which the father receives unemployment
compensation regardless of the amount and of the unmet
need of the family. Section 2331.31(3) of the Vermont
Welfare Manual implements this requirement for Ver-
mont.

‘ The needs of the plaintiffs for a minimum subsistence
compatible with health and decency are computed by the
Department of Social Welfare and appear in the Vermont
Welfare Manual at Section 2211.2. The amount received
by the plaintiffs under the unemployment compensation
program is considerably less than the amounts the De-

10

partment has adopted as the minimum necessary for a
decent and healthful subsistence.

42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) and Vermont Welfare
Regulation 2331.31(3) violate the due process and equal
protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments
for the following reasons:

A. Section 607 creates two classes of children whose
fathers are unemployed, those who are eligible for state
unemployment compensation and those wha are not.
Needy children are excluded solely because their fathers
receive or are eligible to receive unemployment com-
pensation benefits even though such benefits may be far
below what would otherwise be received under public
assistance. Plaintiffs would be eligible for assistance
if they were receiving amounts equal to their unemploy-
ment benefits in any other form of income or benefits.
Having eligibility turn on the source of the income
rather than the amount constitutes an invidious dis-
crimination against the former group of children.

B. 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) is unconstitutional
because it only disqualifies those children whose fathers
are eligible for unemployment. If both parents are in
the home and the mother is receiving unemployment,
the family is eligible for ANFC-UF. This is an arbitrary
distinction conditioned solely on which parent is receiv-
ing unemployment.

C. 42 U.S.C. § 606 peoviiiee ANFC eligibility for
children who are deprived of parental support or care
due to continued absence of one parent from the home.
Eligibility under section 606 does not depend upon whether
the parent in the home is receiving unemployment or
not. Thus, the same children who are ineligible under
section 607 because the father is receiving unemploy-
ment would be eligible for ANFC under section 606 if
either parent deserted the family. The statutory scheme
which penalizes children because their parents are not
separated is arbitrary and invalid under the fifth and
fourteenth amendments.

Subparagraphs A, B and C above are equally applicable
_ to Vermont Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3).

11
V. CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs represent the class of those families residing

in the State of Vermont who are eligible for the ANFC-
UF program but for their fathers’ receipt of or eligibility

- for unemployment compensation and as a result of this

exclusion from ANFC are receiving assistance insufficient
to meet their needs. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of them-
selves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule
28, F.R.C.P.:

(a) The members of this class are so numerous that
joinder of them all is impracticable.

(b) There are questions of law and fact common to
all members of the class, and the common ‘questions of
law and fact predominate over any questions effecting
only individual members of the class.

(c) The claims of the representative plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(d) Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the class.

(e) An adjudication of the rights of the named rep-
resentatives of the class would, as a practical matter, be
dispositive of the interests of all other members.

VI. THREE JUDGE COURT

The Plaintiffs request that this action be heard by a
three judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281
and 2282 because plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction
against the enforcement of an act of Congress and the
regulations of statewide applicability on the ground that
they are repugnant to the Constitution.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that:

1. This court assume jurisdiction of this cause and
convene a three judge court pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.
§§ 2281, 2282 and 2284;

12

2. This court issue an order declaring that this is
an appropriate class action and granting plaintiffs leave
to proceed with this action as a class action;

8. The court declare 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) in
violation of the due process clause of the fifth amend-
ment and enjoin its enforcement as to plaintiffs and the
class they represent;

4. The court declare Vermont Welfare Regulation
2331.31(3) in violation of the equal protection clause of
the fourteenth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as
to the plaintiffs and the class they represent;

5. That the Vermont Commissioner of Social Welfare
be enjoined to pay retroactive benefits to the plaintiffs
and the class they represent in the same amount that
they would have been paid under 42 U.S.C. § 606 or as
if the mother, instead of the father, had been receiving
unemployment compensation;

6. That a writ in the nature of mandamus issue
against the secretary of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare ordering him to approved the Ver-
mont ANFC-UF plan without requiring it to contain a
provision based on 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (ce) (ii) ;

7. Grant such further relief as the court may deed
just and appropriate.

JEAN GLODGETT, DEANNA GLODGETT &
TINA GLODGETT

ROGER PERCY, SR., ROSAMOND PERCY,
SHARON, SHEILA, ROGER, MARY,
MATTHEW & CHARON PERCY

By /s/ Richard S. Kohn
Richard S. Kohn
Douglas L. Molde
Richard A. Axelrod
Vermont Legal Aid, Ine.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed April 17, 1972]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BETIT

The defendant Betit answers the complaint of the
plaintiffs as follows:
I

1) Defendant Betit denies all of the allegations under
the subjects of JURISDICTION and THREE-JUDGE
COURT.

2) With regard to parts A and B under the subject
of PARTIES, defendant Betit admits that the named
plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and of the
State of Vermont, but is without knowledge and in-
formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this
allegation with regard to any alleged parties other than
the named plaintiffs, and, therefore, denies the allegation
to the extent that it may seek to encompass unnamed
parties.

8) With regard to parts C and D under the subject

; PARTIES, the defendant Betit admits the allegations

thereunder, but specifically alleges that any denial of
ANFC benefits by him was consistent with State and
Federal law as set forth in § 2331.31(3) of the Verinont
Welfare Assistance Manual and 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2)
(ii), respectively.

4) With regard to parts E and F under the subject
of PARTIES, defendant Betit admits that the named
plaintiffs have been receiving unemployment compensa-
tions from the State of New Hampshire in the case of
plaintiffs Glodgett and from the State of Vermont in
the case of plaintiffs Percy during a period of time
herein, but does not admit that they have received un-
employment compensation for any specific period of time
that the complaint might consider. The defendant Betit

14

alleges that he is without knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this allega-
tion with regard to any alleged parties other than the
named plaintiffs, and, therefore, denies the allegation
to this extent.

Defendant Betit further admits that plaintiffs Glodgett
were notified by letter that their ANFC benefits were to
be terminated on February 16, 1972 due to the fact that
said plaintiffs were receiving unemployment compensa-
tion, and that plaintiffs Percy were denied their ap-
plication for ANFC benefits on or about December 20,
1971, for the reason that said plaintiffs were then re-
ceiving unemployment~compensation. Defendant Betit al-
leges, however, that said denials by him were consistent
with State and Federal laws as set forth in § 2331.31
(3) of the Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual and 42
U.S.C. § 607 (b) (2) (ii), respectively.

5) Under the subject STATEMENT OF CLAIM, the
defendant Betit answers as follows:

a) Admits the allegations of Part I.

b) As to Part 2, defendant Betit admits that § 607
(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security Act provides that
ANFC payments may not be made to an otherwise eligible
family if the father is eligible for or receiving unemploy-
ment compensation, and that § 2331.31(3) of the Ver-
mont Welfare Assistance Manual implements the said
Federal section. Defendant Betit further admits that
§ 2211.2 of the Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual
sets forth the basic living requirements for persons eligi-
ble for assistance in the ANFC Program, but denies that
this would apply to the named plaintiffs, since they do
not meet the eligibility requirements for this program.
The defendant Betit alleges that he is without sufficient
knowledge and information to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation that plaintiffs (named or un-
named) receive “considerably less” from unemployment
compensation than the amounts reflected in the aforesaid
standards.

¢) The defendant Betit denies all the remaining al-
legations under STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

15

6) Defendant Betit denies all of the allegations under
the subject of “Class action.”

Il
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim for
which relief can be granted.

Ill
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendants and
the subject matter. -
iv, —

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

That the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law
and that they have failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies and their right of judicial review in State
Courts.

V
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The regulations of the Vermont Department of Social
Welfare and the purported acts of which plaintiffs com-
plain are based upon Section 407(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the
Social Security Act and the requirements imposed by the
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and
there is no liability or responsibility on the defendant
Betit, individually or as the Commissioner of the Ver-
mont Department of Social Welfare.

16
VI
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

That in view of the Fourth: Affirmative Défense, that
the defendant Betit should be dropped as a party de-
fendant.

WHEREFORE the defendarit Betit, prays that the
plaintiff take nothing by this complaint and this action
be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated this 17th day of April, 1972. _
Respectfully submitted, —

\

JAMES N. JEFFORDS
Attorney General

State of Vermont
Montpelier, Vermont 05602

By: /s/ David E. Wilson
Davip E. WILSON, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
c/o Department of Social Welfare
8 East State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602

WLAN 8 Mi ABLE eed in ei .

> - 17,
_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ©
DISTRICT OF VERMONT —

[Filed June 15, 1972]
[Title Omitted in Printing]

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
ELLIOT RICHARDSON

Now comes the United States of America (Elliot
Richardson, individually and as Secretary of the De- |
partment of Health, Education and Welfare), by its
attorney, George W. F. Cook, United States Attorney —
for the District of Vermont, and submits the following
for its answer to this complaint:

I. This paragraph sets forth conclusions of law and
not allegations of fact, but insofar as an answer may
be required, defendant respectfully denies each and every
allegation of fact and conclusion of law that may be.
contained therein.

II. This paragraph sets forth conclusions of law and
not allegations of fact, but insofar as an answer may
‘be required defendant respectfully denies each and every
allegation of fact and conclusion of law that may be
contained therein. :

III.

A. and B. Defendant Richardson ‘does not presently
possess sufficient information and knowledge to deter-
mine the truth of the allegations contained in these
paragraphs.

C. The allegations of this paragraph are’ admitted.

D. Defendant Richardson does not presently possess
sufficient information and knowledge to determine the
truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph,

‘EXCEPT that he admits the allegations contained in

the first two sentences of this paragraph.

E. and F. Defendant Richardson does not presently
possess sufficient information, to determine the truth of
the allegations contained in these paragraphs.

| 18
IV, V and VI. These paragraphs contain conclusions
of law and not allegations of fact, but insofar as an
answer may be required defendant respectfully. denies
each and every allegation of fact or conclusion of law
contained therein.
VII. All allegations not expressly hereinbefore ad-
mitted, denied or modified are denied.
| VII. Defendant respectfully submits the following by
way of affirmative defense: vot
1, This Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over
the subject matter of this action.
2. The complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
8. This suit, should be dismissed for lack of proper
” venue.

Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 15th day
of June,'1972._
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' George W. F. Cook
' United States Attorney

' By /s/ Norman Cohen
NORMAN COHEN
Assistant U.S. Attorney

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed August 16, 1972]
[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTIONS OF SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE

I. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS |

Defendant Elliot Richardson, Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, by and through
his attorney, George W. F'. Cook, United States Attorney
for the District of Vermont, pursuant to Rule 12(c),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully moves this
Honorable Court to grant to said defendant a judgment
on the pleadings, as Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests this
Honorable Court grant this Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. ;

Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 11th day
of August, 1972.

GEORGE W. F. Cook
United States Attorney

By /s/ Norman Cohen
NORMAN COHEN
Assistant U.S. Attorney

20
II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, by and through his attorney,
George W. F. Cook, United States Attorney for the
District of Vermont, pursuant to Rule 56(b), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully moves this Honor-
able Court to grant to this defendant a Summary Judg-
ment, as there is no dispute as to any material fact and
defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays this Hon-
orable Court grant this Motion for a Summary Judgment.

Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 11th day
of August, 1972. .

GEORGE W. F. Cook
United States Attorney

By /s/ Norman Cohen
NORMAN COHEN
Assistant U.S. Attorney

21

III. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JUDGMENT

Defendant Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, by and through his attorney,
George W. F. Cook, United States Attorney for the Dis-
trict of Vermont, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (2), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully moves this Honor-
able Court to dismiss this Complaint and for cause states:

1. This Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction as the
Complaint fails to show that jurisdiction exists
under 28 U.S.C. 1831, 28 U.S.C. 1861, or ‘28

U.S.C. 2201.
WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays this Hon-
orable Court grant this Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Judgment.
Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 11th day of

August, 1972.

GEORGE W. F. Cook
United States Attorney

By /s/ Norman Cohen
NORMAN COHEN
Assistant U.S. Attorney

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed August 16, 1972]
[Title Omitted in Printing]

APPENDIX A TO MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT
RICHARDSON

The average weekly and monthly unemployment com-
pensation figures used herein are derived from statistics
found in the Monthly Labor Review, December 1971,
Vol. 94, No. 12, published by the United States Depart-
ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, at page 100:

i

ee me em or ee we

1824 Sry po SurvurToq Oy ye 204 20m peorpes © Aq poy s syyOUDg 10) VonSHIdde VY 4,
“swe sBord 01815 ym Avro! epew sjvewhed pus Swie;> ve EIEP S9pM 273 o
“Spuels) viB0,A Oy) SOPN>u; ,
“swe 801d see Ym hjuiol epew SyuewAed pus Sune]? WO EIEp SOpN}273 »
“persed yvow-2] @ ui uawhoydwa posers
OBE Ae Oy) JO 92100 © Se pessesdre PoOho}dwoun posNs.s' jo LEQuINs OY $1 8)E) OY) ,
“BIO 4IOM SUTIICTNS WEDIY BIIDNG Jy
wWes801d Oy) JOPUN EYE OPAIU! JuswWAO}GWOUA POINSY! djCIS PUR Sue? eNNIY) »
“Weushojdweun jo yOOM | SEO] Je JO UONE;GwWOD Oy) BuNs0das Sse yI0m JO LOQUMY »

“OPRPCAS Ow BpEp Syer~pEr SeysED °21ON

“Pitog Jowssney peosjey SN Ou

1 paseCord 8! yam SouEINsU! juOWAGOwWOUN PeOse) Jd9IT9 Suse}! 1/© bY) swejsig
VOrjew 160) JUOWOZEUELY PUS [eIQUEYLY J CDC ‘20qG0) fv JuOWIEGEG '$'N :JIUNOS
“hrcernyesd me

S¥e] OIEIS 18jNBas Jo SuOMsIAOIA (G3) BOEING Pepuelx; LOPUR Pery SwE;> SOpNpE)

Dy PVENSU) 1OWAOIOU:dUN PEOIIEY Ou) PUL SUEsIOID 249 Pue VowerAIES-23
"Bi0XS 84) OPUN puewAC;GweUn pesNsUI jo JUNE? payer;dnpUA ve Syuesesdey 4,
‘SudWAECIOPUN JO JueWd/])95 PuE SywoUACdIDA0 40 A19A020) 10) POIEAlpY 9;

BwawAedse pun jo wows) 08 10 sjwowhedsene yo A190020)
20) Parsnipe jou ‘spors9d eyqetuedwod jje 20) ORer2A8 VE $1 JunOwE OBesene O41 os
“Bpos|d wonessites Aep-p| wi juewAojdusun 10; O18 SwewAEY 7

‘seek Owes Og) ui speted

WENDSQNS 105 posIAdes £1 wOrED1éde Ow ‘280K YOURE & U1 WrowAe;dwoun Jo poLlEd

“swesBo1d 8101S JapUA SuNE;> VOYSUTN Sopnisx} Wuawhojdwoun
J Speed Buqueys ose Aq) eye21pu 0) s18420m Aq payy S22qWCU O28 Sue] ;eHIUL ¢
“Spue|s) UID, 24) pws WERD SEPAou) ¢
Way OPIAY 10) EIEP sapnjru} ,

va a as fara sb |

CO a ee (swnyoa
Apyoom eBeseae) wowhojdweun pense;
yt AAT? suoijenddy

“Us "92S [LoL GIS |9ee ‘LIS jove'sis [oon '
Se ee pelrepeen,

*92SS/S9n‘19vSi090 ‘Z9ES/Z1z ‘HOES al Bee ees pred syyousg ye701

vel
$ bbl, ,202 6, i82 e972 479,61 8,741 1,2 42, 7%
_ Bovenber...0. 1 oTeT 762 ,105 74,0 355, 8,272 »702 6=3,%53 57,087 439,67 «Se 022 1,129 42,24
coenber 7/.. 1,383,138 608, 1 1,2 6, bb 01, 325 ’ 61,071 $29.05 $71,435 $,310 , «bh &3,3%
s
isnt
Sameary soos 1,95," 607 955 Te? O75 160, fi 6,409 91,5398 692% 62,9% $0°,5™ $07,191 7,%9 1,3 &7,233
Fowrmry. 1,378,608 | . 618,57 791,23 VC,223 2,2 2,452 Wor oad 6,16 $02 "41 692,542 9.04 1,197 “2,177
Marek T/--oe- eG? , 102 1,525 775 ,683 140, te) 86.5 Me 87% S11, S42 6 Pos VEO $¢-), 461 a,409 1,33 “72%
ABTA. -cccrce 1, Ae By, 03 TT0,670 Yo, 6,466 6 Fe > 0 64% 733 AS .335 550.609 6.6% 1,137 oo = 9
MG. .ccecee 1, 77,293 833,040 TTO,450 M1, & 6, ee? H thr $02,476 ay 5? 20 $°?, Le 1,740 cA,T Le
June Yocccee 1, b6e,059 631,700 171,088 155,362 8.93 od $7,731 shl2 $75,795 $57,216 8,71¢ 1,230 $3,215
Julg.ccccccee 1,695,673 637,23 TTS ,€27 155,053 6,47 03,450 912,°57 62 ,

¥ All data cubject te revision. ‘

29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed August 30, 1972]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
INTERROGATORIES

To: Bert Smith, ANFC Director, Vermont Department
of Social Welfare.

1. State your name and professional qualifications.

2. How long have you been connected with the De-
partment of Social Welfare?

8. What is your present position with the Depart-
ment of Social Welfare?

3. How long have you held that position?

5. Describe your present duties.

6. Are you familiar with the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
§ 607 (b) (2) (c) (ii) and F.S.P.M. 2331.81 (8) ?

7. Do these provisions operate to exclude families from
ANFC where the father is receiving unemployment com-
pensation?

8. If a family is denied ANFC-UF due to 2331,31(3)
is the family eligible for general assistance?

9. If the answer to #8 is affirmative, are the total
benefits from Unemployment Compensation and General
Assistance likely to be as high as ANFC benefits? .

10. If the answer to #9 is negative, explain why not.

11. Do you have an opinion as to whether 42 U.S.C.
§ 607 and F.S.P.M. 2331.31(3) discriminates against cer-
tain families on the basis of sex?

12. If the answer to #11 is affirmative, please explain
the basis for your opinion, giving examples.

13. Do you have an opinion as to whether the exclu-
sion provided by section 607 and 2831.31(3) is arbitrary
and irrational.

14. If the answer to #18 is affirmative, please explain
the basis for your opinion.

80 ”

15. Can you speak for the Department of Social Wel-
fare on policy matters relating to the ANFC program?

16. If the answer to #15 is affirmative would the
Department of Social Welfare like to see § 607(b) (2) (c)
_ (ii) deleted so that otherwise eligible families could
Supplement unemployment compensation with AN FC up
to the State needs standard?

17.. Do you have a personal, opinion on the question
asked in #167
18. If the answer to #117 is affirmative, please state

your opinion giving reasons. |

19. Do you have an opinion as to whether 607 (b) (2)
(c) (ii) and 2831.81(8) encourage fathers receiving Un-
employment Compensation to desert their families so that
the family wiil be eligible for ANFC?

20. If the’ answer to #19 is lar icereatite please state
your opinion.

Af: Richard S, Kohn
RICHARD S. KOHN
Vermont Legal Aid, Ine.
56 Railroad Street
St. Johnsbury, Vermont
Attorney for Plaintiffs

August 28, 1972

oN a ence a cai re as enna eR

31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed November 15, 1972]
{Title Omitted in Printing]

MEMORANDUM CONCERNING AVERAGE
MONTHLY PAYMENTS UNDER ADFC-UF AND
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

This memorandum deals with certain statistics pre-
sented in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Mo--
tions of Defendant Richardson in a case (Civil No. 6550)
brought before the United States District Court, District
of Vermont. On page 12 of the above mentioned memo-
randum it is stated that:

On a nationwide basis, the level of AFDC pay-
ments is lower than the average unemployment com-
pensation payment. Statistics for the period October
1970—September 1971 show that the average weekly
benefit under unemployment compensation was $54.09
or about $234.39 monthly. (See Appendix A.) Dur-
ing the same period, however, the average AFDC
family received $186.58 per month. (See Appendix
B.)

Upon examining these figures and the statistical sources
from which they were derived several points became
clear. First, since the controversy at hand only involves
the Unemployed Father segment of the AFDC population
in those states participating in the AFDC-UF program,
the most relevant AFDC data were not employed. In
the same Public Assistance Statistics series, cited in Ap-
pendix B of the above mentioned memorandum and the
source of the crude nationwide AFDC average quoted
above, there are statistics by state, on average family
payments under the AFDC-UF program. This latter set
of figures ,provides the relevant basis of comparison
with average State Unemployment, Insurance payments.

>

32 :

The second observation was that comparing these two :
programs on the basis of nationwide averages was very ;
misleading. Since the levels of payment in both programs :
are determined in, and vary considerably among, the
different states, a nationwide average obviates meaning-
ful comparison. Instead, average AFDC-UF payments
should have been compared with average UI payments
in those States participating in the AFDC-UF program.

The remainder of this memorandum presents more
recent data on AFDC-UF and UI payments for Fiscal
Year 1972 (July 1971-June 1972) which provide a more
relevant comparison of average payments under the
two programs.

Table 1, on the following page, presents figures on
average payment under the two programs in FY’72 for
the 25 States participating in the AFDC-UF program
during that year. Data on UI payments were pro-
vided by the U.S. Department of Labor (see Appendix
A) and data on AFDC-UF payments were compiled from
12 monthly issues of U.S. Department HEW Public
Assistance Statistics (see Appendix B). By comparing
the two columns in Table I we can see that average
AFDC-UF payments were greater thafi average UI pay-
ments in 16 of 25 States in FY’72. Average UI pay-
ments were higher in the remaining 9 States. In ad-
dition, average payment figures for the 25 States to-
gether were: AFDC-UF, $261.19; UI, $237.44—although
it must again be stressed that these averages conceal :
meaningful differences which exist among the 25 States.
(The difference in State average payments can be seen
graphically in Chart 1 which orders the States on the
basis of their average AFDC-UF payments. )

In 16 States the amounts by which average monthly
_AFDC-UF payments exceed average monthly UI pay- |
ments range from $1.35 to $101.04. In the remaining ‘
9 states where average UI payments are higher, the range |
is from $17.20 to $90.28. These differences are pre- '
sented graphically in Chart 2 which also indicates that
81 per cent of families receiving AFDC-UF lived in the
16 States where average AFDC-UF payments were higher

intima a ee

33

than average UI payments in FY’72. Only 19 per cent
of AFDC-UF families lived in the remaining 9 States
where average UI payments were higher.

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY UNEMPLOY-
MENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS WITH AVERAGE
AFDC-UF MONTHLY FAMILY PAYMENTS, BY
STATES WITH AFDC-UF PROGRAMS IN
‘ FISCAL YEAR 1972
4 (July ’71- June ’72)

Average Average
Monthly Unemployment Monthly AFDC-UF
State ° Compensation Payment* Family Payment?

1. California $251.17 $236.71
2. Colorado 253.54 272.57
3. Delaware 186.48 229.70
4. District of Columbia 189.60 279.88
5. Hawaii 367.14 283.49
6. Illinois 281.45 243.07
7. Kansas ; 251.28 222.31
8. Maine 220.46 211.64
9. Maryland 203.71 260.69
10. Massachusetts 303.21 252.19
11. Michigan 309.56 254.43
12. Minnesota 333.11 232.07
18. Missouri ¢ 175.30 217.40
14. Nebraska _ 208.91 207.56
15. New York 327.65 258.64
16. Ohio 205.07 231.59
17. Oklahoma 199.90 192.98
18. Oregon 222.73 205.11

34
TABLE 1 ( Continued)

_ Average Average
Monthly Unemployment Monthly AFDC-UF
State ° Compensation Payment * Family Payment »

-

19. Pennsylvania 265.96 261.18
20. Rhode Island 234.99 252.19
21. Utah 236.57 229.74
22. Vermont 308.00 255.50
23. Washington 242.09 261.31
24. West Virginia 141.20 175.95
25. Wisconsin ° 357.54 270.98
U.S. Average t 261.19 237.44

*Compiled from monthly Public Assistance Statistics, Na-
tional Center for Social Statistics Report Series A-2, U.S.
Dept. of HEW.

* Unpublished data supplied by State Employment Security
Agencies to U.S. Dept. of Labor, Manpower Administration.

*Only those states with AFDC-UF programs have been
included. :

* AFDC-UF data for six months, July-Dec. ’71.
* AFDC-UF data for seven months, Dec. 71 - June ’72,

‘U.S. Average for AFDC-UF is for all States with AFDC-
UF programs. U.S. Average for Unemployment Compensa-

SALT LA ACARI Di Ses Re sa —

|

"ef 8 * s23esnysessoy °f

Li tii ti ae Tt OMA “Gg
wey NE ee ee ae pee ve6iy21W .
Pare ee 420, HOH *G
Bee PE ee eS eossuuiW “€
ee Re REE eR Ge ee ulsuorsim °Z
Lo ee LA en ‘yemey “tf
ot og? Onz 002s aes

(820@; 409 Uj) auomAeg abesany 40 JUNOMy

TL. BWAF = 12, ANC) 2Z61 BVIA WwISI3 *LNIWAVd JN-20S¥ 40 LNNOWY AG G3VI0VO SILVAS AG ‘SINIWAVE
AVIWVS ATHLNOW JN-I03V JOVUZAV HLIA SANIWAVd JINVUNSNI LN3IWADTAWINN ATHLWOW JOVUZAV. 30 NOSI VEO)

1 L¥VHd

8 ‘4 9190, 3824N0S

cores omy Wsem ‘SZ

ees. 8 wre, © 1anossiW "nz

“a rt tt tt tasemeyag “Ez
ct

* *@yqunyod yO 32449810 “22

fe 0 LA OOD OR OO EES
Sore, : otsfet settee Sake, PS dn ph is

. . . . . . . . . "0140 "61

+ * *eysesqan “gi

oe 8 © © & auliew "Lt

* * *y060s0 “91

SER SS: a | *n

(7) sn-204v

"+ * *puerst epoyw “St

oeere syean “wl

‘ "u076u;ysen *€l

+ 9.7% sequsogr ied “Zt

ee * sesuey “ul

:* + VeyueajAsuueg 6

+ * ga3esnysessey °/

. . . . WUuCM SA “9

ee *uebsy2iW *s

oo eee 4104 MON

* * + * @ejosauuin “€

+ + * upsuorsim °2

aa e pees
J ’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ ;
| a 7 | | rr oz: 08 | om 0 aieis

(8301400 4) quomAeg abesary 4O JUNOCMY

(22, anne © 12, AINE) 2261 WV3A TWIS!4 “INaWAVE JN-20d¥ 40 LNNOWY AG GI¥IGVO SILVIS AG *SLNIMAVE
ATIWVd ATHANOM 31-204 29VU3AV HLIM SANBHAVE JONVUNSNI LN3HADTGHINN AIHLNOW 2OVUIAW. 40 NOSINVEWO?

™ { LuvHd

UF es

families receiving AFOC-

These states contained 817, of
of April, 1972.

These states contalned
19/ of familles receive

tng AFOC-UF us of
April, 1972

y

"+

we
. .

—
"OU ON AM Fw

CHART 2

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE AFOC-UF AND U.1. PAYMENTS, BY STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972 (JULY ‘7! - JUNE ‘72)

Amount That Average AFDC-UF Payment Exceeds Average
U.1, Payment (In Dollars)

36

Amount That Average U.!. Payment Exceeds Average
AFDC-UF Payment (in Doi lars)

19

22

3982

39

e2

70

Bp 9-190

asase 5 a ST CO

Minnesota . . 101.041 -

Wisconsin®.

Vermont .... 2. se eo
Massachusetts .....-.

Qllinois. . 2... 2 ew we te ee

Kensas . 2. 2. 2 2 es we we wee

Oregon . 2... ee ee ee
Maine... 2 2 ee ee

Utah. . 2. 2. 2 ee ee °
Pennsylvania... ..-
Webraska. . 2... 2. e-
Rhode Island. . ....--
Colorado. . . 2. - 2 ew eee

West Virginia . 6 1 ew ee eee ee te es a eee ee
Missouri® o.8 #6 « Pe a er ae

Celaware. .. - «+ + see

Maryland. . 2... 6 ee °
District of Columbia. . . ..

Source: Table !.

Niscondin AFOC-UF figures are averaged for seven months, December !971 to June 1972.

Ouissouri AFDC-UF figures are averaged for six months, July 1971 to December 1971.

37

Finally one must consider what these averages for the
two programs mean and examine, if possible, the dis-
tribution of recipients both above and below the averages.
It must be first emphasized that since we are dealing
with average figures there are certainly a large num-
ber of families receiving higher AFDC-UF benefits even
in States where average Ul is higher than average AFDC-
UF. Secondly we must remember that the two programs
are designed to benefit two different populations: AFDC-
UF, as other public assistance programs, is exclusively
for the “poverty” population while UI is to provide
temporary benefits to all unemployed who fall under its
coverage, be they rich or poor and regardless of other
sources of nonincome wealth. This fact is important when
considering the meaning of the average UI payments.
Sources in the Labor Department indicate (and informa-
tion on the various State plans back this up) that most
UI eligibility requirements, being largely dependent on
level of salary, are such that most covered workers who
are employed full time in jobs with salaries over the
‘poverty level” would be eligible to receive benefits at
the State-set maximum. They further indicate that a
large part of those workers who receive UI payments
substantially below the maximum are those employed
full-time in jobs with extremely low wages or employed
on a part-time or seasonal basis. From the growing
literature on poverty as well as from personal observa-
tion most would agree that among the poorer part of the
population (with few if any other sources of income or
wealth) employment is more likely to be in extremely low-
paying full-time work or in part-time or seasonal work.
This means that these “marginally-employed” workers,
the very people who might otherwise qualify for AFDC-
UF, are more likely to be those who receive UI benefits
which are substantially below the State averages. (Ap-
pendix C presents’.a listing of the percentages of UI
recipients in each State who are eligible for maximum
payments. )

In contrast to UI payments, which vary largely accord-
ing to the worker’s previous salary, AFDC payments
vary according to the presence of other income but pri-

38

marily according to family size. Thus, the level of benefits
for the poorest AFDC recipients is determined almost
exclusively by family size. It is generally recognized, and a
substantiated by the figures shown in Table 2 below, that
poor families, particularly nonwhite poor families, tend
to be larger. This, in turn, implies that the same families, j
who would be more likely to receive the UI payments
under the State averages because of the previous mar-
ginal employment status of the father, would otherwise -
be eligible for higher AFDC-UF benefits because of larger
family size.

TABLE 2

MEAN FAMILY SIZE ABOVE AND BELOW THE
POVERTY LEVEL, BY RACE, 1970

Families

. Spanish-
Total White Black American

Above Poverty Line 3.52 3.48 8.88 4.16
Below Poverty Line 3.88 3.57 4.66 4.80

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:
1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics
(Final Report PC(1)-C1, United States Summary),
Table 95 p. 400. :

This is further substantiated when, as of June 1972,
we note that in every State except two (D.C. and Rhode
_Asland)- participating in the AFDC-UF program, average |
'.AFDC-UF family payments are higher than average
' non-UF, AFDC family payments by substantial amounts.
In Vermont, for example non-UF AFDC payments aver-
aged $225.81 per family while AFDC-UF payments aver-
aged $331.08 per family. (For differences in other States,
see Appendix D.) Thus, in sum, we can see that even
State averaging tends to hide the fact that families
eligible for AFDC-UF payments are more likely to re-
ceive payments at or above average AFDC payments and

Ny Ct ap
also more likely to receive UI payments below the various
State averages,

A final important point to note concerns maximum
payments allowable under the two programs, All States
set legal maximums on IU payments while only a small
number do for AFDC payments. Table 3, on the follow-
ing page, compares these maximums (either legal or
administrative) and we can see that in only one State
(West Virginia), out of 25 with AFDC-UF programs,
is the legal maximum for UI payments higher than it is
for AFDC. In the other 24 States the AFDC maximum
is higher than that for UI payments or there simply is no
legal or administrative maximum placed on AFDC pay-
ments. °

a Richard S. Kohn

. RICHARD S. KOHN ,
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.
56 Railroad Street
St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819
November 13, 1972

Davip WILCOCK Pee
Research Analyst, Legal Action
Support Project:
Bureau of Social Science Research
1990 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.CA20036
ee 10, 19

*203Y wNwixXew Spo02%e If] WNW) xew BI04M 07028 AL UD,

*UvspPL_tY2 Yuspusdsp YyyIA
SJOYIOM PVAO; dwouUNn 10) $11;9U0q 397096 OplAosd Yd!1YM $O32e3S BS04} Uy UdA!IG OYE swhw)xcw Ont,

*UOS1FeduO> 4Oy Swnwyxew Ap YyQuOw 396 03 E*H Aq poridii( ow Swnwixew A} yo9K,
¢
"pre lyons yO o6es0A0e (eyo) 3eU

© YOZl Pe xD YoU asnw suossod 0) sjues6 Aouow yo e6eseae 93038 3042 S22e]8 me; U1SUOIS IA,

*SOry ywey vossed 6 403 pareynd;e2 Sunw}xey, - “

; *(€-@ r20d0y $$3H) TIE
JO Sout] [Ulaods oq) JO Slustd! doy OF StUUANY A KoUOW Baryywy] JO Spogryoy 3-jo RTT ET |

DIOS "FISH WEIS 1e1905 or 42 .0a) “Oren “Sus ‘manasn pure (1/61 ‘OS °On 14Odoy d2ueysISssy
2119) TOE ATVAIOT YET IT Ogi ST BUC Lg DUCTSTSSY D1] qhg JIVuS JO SIs! io}IGIUYD ‘BIJAJOS

VOHIOIILIGIUDY PUES (OPPOS “NZ “IDIWDL*S*N FIdIY JOY Swowine.: aArzeszsS:Usumpe pue je6e; UO

e3eqg “UO eAISsUIuPy JonodueW ‘40gGe7) JO “3d3qg *S'H BY Aq POP Avsd Surwixew 93825 IM VO eIeg iaoDuNE¢g
-- oy elt q* ; UlsuorsIA “ST

9 (0S ‘Ont -) 05 22z¢ (1) zeus @yUsGs1A 1804 “Hz
-- oy See wnw 1 xem ON vo Gurysem * €Z

-- oie’ wnw | xeur ON WuOwseA *ZZ

02°19 O€ gue (1) ots yen “1z

- pod “Szhn~0d "6EE wnw sxe ON puels| epoyy ‘OZ

-- p06 G6E-CS “S9E wnwyxew ON @yueajAsuuey * 6}

-- 09°992 wnw | xew ON uo06es0 “gt

00°29 00°9S2 (v) oze$ ewoye;4O Zt

-- pot "Ly €-01 “SHz ww 1 xu ON 2140 “9

-- 0S “zz¢ wnw 1 xe@w ON 440A MON *SI

00'Stt 00°8Sz e(1) 96€$ exSCIG2N “ht

> 9S 06'0LZ e(v) zze$ 1anossiw = Et
-- ty aT & 4 wnw1xew ON @yesouuiH “2

-- p09 S6E-08 "One unui) xew ON vebiyrin “tl

oo pol’ "SS- 06° 9S¢ = wnuy}xew ON Swasnyoessew ‘O}

-- OW SEE wnw!xew ON puctAsew 6

OL szt 06°04 e(1) 66€$ ourew *g

=. 02 °S2z wows xew ON sesuey “f

-- pol 2ih-o€ Giz ww! xu ON srourtit ."9

-- 00 '/g¢ _ wins x@uL ON . premen =6°S

-- . 05 tS wnwixew ON eyquniO) gO y2!4IsSIq =“ y

~ QS $28 0S 612 e(1) $ss$ osemejaqg *¢
: -- 0 69€ wnw)xew ON Opesoyo) °Z
os‘ent$ 05° 2z€$ “e() tdns ; eyusosyye> *t

S€L/t/t-20 72/01) (v) $32efo1d Aovow vo

enw} xew IN speerx9
wnwxeH I0sy IUNowy

SyusidAeg D2ueINSL|
WRwWAOLCUIUH JO4
Sunuixey (e607 932035

Swnwsx@w 9A1 3023S ;UIWPY

so (1) Sumurxew yuowhey

ees

At yweyg (e697 Jgsy 92025

wZ-1261 ‘suvwd0ud JONVUNSNE AN3WAOTdWINN ONY
30J¥ IHL YIONN SLNIWAVE- NO SHOW IXWH JALAWULS IN IWQV wo/anNyY 1v937 3ivLsS 40 nos 1wvawo2
€ Hevi :
. 2 “Be -

4

*uo1 3843S 1UIwpY Jomoduew ‘Joge}] jO *3daqg *S*N *e24NOS

€S°€€ O21y OJ49Nd Ht 1S Buworm
in" L€ iddississiw o£°1S sesuey
€L°6€ eu!1;0se) Y4240N 18°15 oyep |
26° On e1ui6s1A 359M 98°25 exsely
SS ° ot 2307eq9 YINOS ZH" €S oseme| oq
Z1° 4 eu1joiey YyINOS €n°€S ye3n
nl eh epl4ol4 98° £S ©0140
zl°€h eue}UuOW L6°€S eOsouU IW
SL°€h sesuexsy g0°SS @1Us105 112)
Ol th eossouusl
Lh* th e161099 72°SS WLOL “S‘N
88° 4h ewoye {40
$6° th sexo] €5°9S srourttt
62°Sh eweqe|y $8°9S emo |
. 01°95 epeaon
96°St VNV ION I $9°8S pue;s} spoyy
‘ $9°85 SiJesSNYy>IeSSeW
0°9h O21X9W MON 41°6S ue6b1y2!W
£o°lh e1ui6sin 74°65 quOws 3A
6L°Lh u06910 $1°09 44OA MON
Lz°ah e4SCI GON 69°09 pue Asey |
72 °6h oulew 4L°09 e;uea, Asuued
1S°6h Axon quay LL°09 uo burysem
49°64 eue;s1no7 z0° £9 U1suors!m
96° 6h euoz1sy 6£° £9 opesojo)
95°0S 14noss iW 60°S9 e1qun,o) sO 33143510
€3°0S 220424 424ON 0L°S9 3n2}}20UUu07
€z°15$ 94 14ysdwey MON €6°S9$ 1yemey
9

2 ORES A SOR LETT EL RNR IE MB OA LG CLO IE EOD
tly Ad ‘SLI4ZINIG JOINVYNSNI LNIWAOTAWINN 3LVLS J9VURAV

Junowy 3140U9g A, 490m BBesony Ag poxuey $0303

aera

V XION3ddV

43

APPENDIX B

The following twelve pages present the relevant data
for AFDC-UF payments by state, FY ’72. DHEW, NCSS
Report A-2 (7-7) thru 6/72) Public Assistance Statistics.

?

%
Tate B.--k1d to f-milies with depenient —, uncaplayed~porent sepzent: Recipients of soney payzents and emount of saynents,
by State, July 1971 1/
Erevrtes vendcr otyee:r.ts for institutional services in intermediate care facilities and
for gedical cere and cases receiving only euch Pryzents/
=
Sumter of recipicnts Pay-.cnts. to recloients ; Percentage change fro-7--
Sunter
State of Sinks Averaze per-- June 3971 in-- Juiy 2970 in--
Sams Lies Toral 2/° Children neh

—" Fami.y Kecipient Muster ef Amount marer of Amount

- $3.55 -3.0 Ale o€2.7 748.9
a Whe ccs Bee 3,¢62 13,4 12,557 ©32.2% glf0. 31 25.29 -4.7 *7.3 7.5 “7.3

VU 2402 for "Ai. ceament OF the orozrum, show sezcerately here, are included in dara for the total progras.
fest) al wetcsr peyzen.s other than e'ese for ancuitctiorel services in inzermediate care facilitics.

af scel ses wt recipient. tne children ane . or tota parents os 1 caretaker relutive otter tna: 8 yArent iz
CST .Or.% et PS SH Cetermi.eng the azdunt of assistance.

A Feoeran so..ttatec Aug ist 3770.

FV Tenn fa, TNS ROL computed on base of fever than 50 resipients; percentage change on fever than i090 recipients.
y Prelixinary sate.

All cata sidject to revision. Teta include non-

families in which the regutresents of such adults

Table 8.--Aid to families with dependert children, uner>loyed-parent segment: Recipients of money payzents
and azount of paynents, by State, August 197i rT ;

[Excludes vendor payments for institutional services in intermediate care facilities and

for medical care and cases /ecelving only such paynents/ . .
Bunter of recipients Paynents to recipients Percentage chas.ce fror.--
Surber cas ae * ~~
State pe was ai aioe Average per - July 1971 in Asguct 1970 in
ferilies = laren amount Muxber of Murer of

Fanily Recipient . | recipients Amount recipients Amount
Total.... 132,573 633,248 3&4, 723 $32,904,065 $250.27 $51.9 \. .ts sther tren those for {netituticnal services in inserceciate care facilities.
imcleis a= reci; ents the children and i or both parents or 1 carctaker reletive other than a pare=t ic faniiies in which the requirerents of such adults
Were consiercd in Jetersining the amount of assistance.

Estractcée ty Sccte.

Increase of sore 20,535 2.9% 984,005 217.95 47.02 725.5 23.1 -25.4 °24.2
ere ecccces $,335 24, €5¢ i~, 338 1,359, 1:5 7254.76 $4.61 +8.0 2.6 “9.7 41.5
Ba Bo ccccsucse 839 4,326 2,614. 209,828 236.C3 48.53 +.6 -1.7 +38.7 472.46
WEAR. a. cece cee 1,956 9,728 $3,869 663,53 33.37 47.59 -.4 23.4 +16.5 +37.5
eRe eee 36? 3,825 1,096 112,407 357.35 61.81 -2.6 -4.7 431.9 +33.7
Week. 6.00 esse 6,--% 27,615 15,379 1,522,533 237.55 $5.12 +24.0 718.5 223.0 419.3
ee es Sones 2,694 14,266 9,458 405,165 156.0 28.49 +5.2 78.2 232.7 -26.0
Wis... 6as6 3,352 4,79? 3,87 £58, 30! Qi. ca? $5.54 (3/) Gi) — «ce

iV Dsea for. this s..c-nt ef the prosran, shown separately here, are included in data for the tcta!l progran.
eclical vend r Fa, "2008 other: tt.as those for institutional services in intermediate care facilities.
2/ Inctstes as recipicuts the children and 2 or both parents or 1 cereteker relative ocher chan a parenc in families in which the requirements of such edults

All data sudject to revision. Data include non-

were consicered in ccteruining the amount of assistance.

3/ Amount tncluces $224,000 represencing grants for special needs for che quarter Jacuary-March 1972.
@a-cu:.
$386. 7:

s Pro-- ~_

af Treira

The average pay=ents and perceatase — excluce this

Inclucin., this azount che averace payments, per famiiy ae per recipient, would be, respectively: U. $. total, $257.C9 end $53.80; and Massachusetts,

re $73.95.
* Operation; no payments asde in December.
“,ttates October 71.

Table 8.--Aid to families wien dependent chiidren, unempioyed-parent segment:

Recipients of money payrents and amount of payrents,

by Stace, January 1972 1/

fExcludes vendor payments for mefical care an¢ cases receiving only such paynents/

Neeber of recipterctea

Payzcnts to recizients

Percenatase change from--

ene — . Average per-- December 1971 in-- Jenuary 1971 in--
oF ; Tocal
fentites Toral 2/ Children ones Kumber of Murder of

_ Family Recipient recipients Amount recipients Amount

Totel.... 138 “$7 } 656,059 393,727 $35,824,811 $259.49 $54.61 +0.9 42.6 -16.2 -3.2

Bare G cscs $0,777 233,149 139,997 12,004,233 236041 51.49 “1.5 +.2 -26.3 -16.2
Cale. cccccccee 20335 10,973 6,363 $28,837 254.36 $3.63 +7.0 +6.9 +5.8 +4.0
DT a oak chee 122 896 $42 29,6€3 162.98 zs By | +12.3 +8.1 _ *34.5 +32.4
“ig” aR ee 1,055 6,478 3,074 201,187 190.70 65.44 +:.6 +4.6 4433.7 4328.3
pene 1,635 4,762 2,688 3€8 ,237 355.78 77.33 +7.3 +.5 491.4 +106.1
SiR ibsaviesss 18,746 94, S76 57,681 3,338,042 284.35 56.44 1.0 21,3 +89.0 +78.3
NS aa 738 3,755 2,253 177,934 234.76 67.39 +2.4 +4,1 WA a i
A RR 214 661 473 25,502 223.69 38.58 -23.0 -23.0 -79.8 80.4
aS 991 #609 2,733 197,351 199.65 42.93 +16.7 +16.4 425.7 +29.?
Wile sissies 2,53? 10,756 6,734 651,549 7311.45 60.58 +1.1 17.2 +21.7 +23.1
eee a mre 1?,aC0 62,142 37,373 4,051,529 316.53 65.18 +8.0 +12.8 463.2 +83.9
A ERE, 1,821 &,322 4,725 628,302 345.03 75.50 +11.9 419.9 +144.5 *184.1
Nebrececcccces 6 259.20 69.99 47.0 15.1 425.1 +29.0
e Miatices 2,423 12,53. 8,107 324.749 136.82 26.65 +2.7 “11.6 ra 43.2
WER. on ooiceee ey ' 2,368 149% 7,2-3 £53,293 364.26 71.34 #21.9 +14.5 Q/) Q/)
{

U/ tata for th.s sopment of the proxram, shown separatcly here, ere included in daca for the totel program. All date subject to revision.

P/ Includes a2 sacipients the ehiléren and 1 or beth parents or | caretaker eetacive other than a parent in families in which the requirements of such adults
are cons:Zered in detertiniag the emount of assistance.

B/ Procras initiaied October 1971.

Table 8.--Aid to families with dependent children, unemployed-parent serment: Recipients of money paynents and amount of paynents,
by Stace, March 1972 1/

Lixcludes vendor payments for medical os end cases receiving on*y such paysents]

Mumber of recipients Payments to recipients Percentage change from--
pe Hurbes ; Average per-- . February 1972 in-- March 1971 in--
ete ft . re
. Toral 2/ Caildrea Tocal
fexilies = amount Number of Number of

Pemily Recipient recipients Amount reciplents Amount

Total.... 165,216 685 ,522 { $12,018 3/ $42,092,270 3/ $289.86 3/ $61.40 "40.9 3/ +7.9 °21.1 3/ 41.1
Colts. .rcccvce 34,781 250, 203 280,512 "17,683, 295 319.15 69.88 42.5 419.7 : 27.0 417.6
Cole... .cccoce 2,452 11,556 6,674 - 623,089 254.11 $3.92 (4/) +.4 +1.0 o>
Bal... csvccverce 177 853 S10% 29,957 164.16 34.06 +18.5 416.0 +.9 -3.5
DB. Ciscccssces 1,214 $,110 3,576 228,911 188.56 44.80 +7.8 +6.1 301.7 4221.1
Maveti........ 1,088 $5,041 2,265 395,697 - 363.69 78.50 42.4 +1.1 +76.8 480.2
BEE .ccsccdvcce 19,246 97,638 $9,162 $,432,721 282.28 $3.99 +.8 +1.9 +38.8 +35.3
ROARS. ccvcesere 714 3,625 2,273 165,166 231.32 45.56 °5.7 -6.0 321.9 . -42.0
MatNe.ccccecses 92 $31 383 20,528 223.24 38.68 12.1 -13.0 88.7 -39.1
Th vakeckgueece 998 4,651 2,743 200, 608 201.01 43.13 -1.1 -2.0 411.3 412.5
WNSE. csccvece. 2.265 121,204 6,984 3/ 846,844] 3/ 373.8% 3/ 75.58 #2.1 3/ 427.4 +$.0 2/ +8.3
WEN, Ssotes eco 13,390 64,991 38,932 4,242,463 316.84 65.28 +1 -1.2 +43.8 +55.3
MEGR cic ccone 1,958 8,916 $,060 665,431 339.&5S 74.63 43.4 41.2 292.9 113.5
Bebe. cccccccece 169 $87 549 34,892 205.56 39.24 11.7 211.7 -24.6 16.2
B. Viccccccvce 9,039 44,320 26,901 3,008 , 399 333.16 67.88 -4.0 (S/) -$9.0 -$1.3
GRIO. cccccccce 32,¢%6 60,719 33,799 2,561,036 202.20 42.18 4.2 +-..7 +70.7 ' 71.46
Sete, scccossce 45 2,419 1,523 $2,730 202.91 38 33 +3 +2.2 423.8 +28.2
Gree 2. 662s pe 4,553 22,672 13,302 1,126,216; | 227.38 43.67 -1.9 +2.0 -22.5 11.6
PO. ccccccccccs 4,C10 18,664 10,679 1,065,708 260.75 $6.21 22.3 -3.6 42.3 -$.2
Be Bevcivecucs 5 4,978 2,638 196, 31€ 2239.34 48.14 -8.6 -9.2 +1.1 6.7
DUG. ccecces 2,161 1C 416 6,22? $98,054 235.19 48.78 +3.5 +2.0 #15.4 +45.4
eee ey ry $$3 27,858 1,679 180,614 305.58 63.42 417.1 +15.6 714.7 +19.7
Wests icss Taece 6,°°3 29, 58S 16,425 1,734,689 249.59 $8.84 “8.9 -11.3 417.6 221.2
We Saki ces se 2,271 8, eee 7,750 : 298 O36 131.24 25. =\ 4.7 -9.3 -43.2 -48.7
6 isi ais 2,727 13,573 8,162 969,732 356,91 7.43 | 413.5 +13.4 ($/) (6/)

1/ face fer this sen-ent of the program, shown ecparately here, are included in data for the tocal program. All data subdjece to revision.
2/ _— as z.ctzients the children and 1 or doth parents or 1 caretaker relative other chan « parent in families in which the requirezents of euch adults vere
“sideres {2 c.termining the amoune of assiscance.
xv pu At inelv2es $260,500 representing graats for special necds for the quarter April-June 1972. The average payments and percentage changes are affected
aceording:y. :

4/ Increese cf tess chen 0.05 percent.

/ Decrease of less thea 0.05 percent.

/ Progras initiated October 1972.

4

Table 8.--Aid to families with dependent seagrass unemployed-father segment: Recipients of money payments and amounc of payments,
by Scate, April 1972 1/ ‘

[Bxcivdes dor pay 3 for wedical > end cases receiving oaly such paynents]

‘ Muaher of rectpiencs Paywents to recipients Percentage change froa--
Munber -
State * ae Total Averaze per-- March 1972 in-- © April 1971 ta--
fenities Total 2/ Crildren is ace pore as

Feaily Recipient recipients Amount recipicate Amount

Tetal..... 139,380 659,926 | 350,104 $36,933,190 $264.98 $55.97 °3.7 212.3 -23.46 -9.9
Caltf......... $2,931 — 263,072 146,564 13,717,628 259.16 $6.43 -2.9 °21.5 -26.4 -3.9
Cole... scoce 2,347 10,960 6,343 $97,389 234.53 $4.51 °3.2 24.1 4.3 -3.4
Del. ...cccce-e 166 799 474 26,270 170.30 35.38 -6.3 -2.7 -6.4 -16.4
B. Crccccccce. 1,284 $,358 3,769 238,69) 186.05 44,59 © +4.9 +4.4 4269.3 4226.1
> Mawait........ 1,142 - $3,311 3,027 397,952 348.56 76.94 +5.4 +.6 +77.7 +77.8
it errr 18,619 — 9,063 - $7,417 $,199,759 279.27 33.29 ee Fe | 4.3 +24.9 419.2
Kans. ... esses 616— 3,143 1,881 174,164 282.73 $5.41 -13.3 +5.4 -35.8 -34.7
Maine.......06 “= 346 394 21,128 224.97 38.70 42.8 +259 88.6 88.9
NE. Se cccccccece 8o8 4,113 2,413 178,814 206.01 43.48 -11.6 -10.9 421.2 #23.7.
Mas®....ce.see 2,411— 11,864 - 7,391 689,544 286.00 $8.12 +5.9 -18.6 +7.5 +6.1
MEER. .coccccce 12,154 ~ $9,378 235,262 3,821,148 314.39 64.57 -8.9 -9.9 423.1 35.1
o MEAG. cc ccccce 1,8%% -- 8,635 4,928 659,626 347.95 76.32 s32 -1.0 +73.8 487.46
Lo) ee 138 782 $04 29,527 216.86 38.27 21.8 .— | -¥6.2 -36.3 -36.6
"BR. Voccecccces 8,482 41,661 35,262 2,910,735 343.16 69.87 -6.0 -3.2 -69.2 -51.0
Obteo.......... 12,793 61,251 36,081 2 {$90,512 202.49 . 42.29 +.9 o.1 .. +55.9 +54.8
Cale... .cccce. £06 — 2,126 2 33 , 80,707 199.77 37.% 212.1 -13.0 -.2 +3.3
Lo See ee an". 19,240 Ae: 952,625 218.74 48.02 -12.5 -15.4 -22.6 -14.9
ee a en 3,944 — 18,336 . $ 970,958 266.19 $2.95 -1.4 -7.1 +6.9 +.5
Ril iceccaccs e590 3,458 2,307 183,633 235.79 49.15 -5.9 -3.9 -4.3 "42.0
DES. - cecct.cas 2,062~ 9,801 $,856 1 $69,534 259.53 $1.99 -5.9 , +.3 +4.2 +16.0
4, ere oseneue 628— 3,012 1,765 - 192,288 306.19 63.84 eee 46.5 +29.3 +34.9
Ws deiaees 6,260 27,066 15,011 1,585,666 251.30 $8.49 -8.3 -9.0 410.4 419.2
W. Va.......-. 2,154 31,223 7,428 306,213 161.23 27.41 4.5 42.1 -49.8 -46.8
oO. piesdecves 2,826 - 13,968 $,374 898,870 318.30 64.35 22.9 -7.3 G/) GQ)

l/ Cate for this seysecn: of the prozrea, shown scparately here, are included in data for the totel prograz. All data subject to revision.

3 Includes as recipients the chileren end 1 os both parents or 1 caretcker relative ocher than « paceat in farilies in which the requirenents cf such adults were
considere! in ¢stermining the amount of assistance.
3/ Progranm initiated October 1971. °

$

”

i

Tadle 8.--Aid to families with dependent children, unemployed-father segzent: Recipients of money payments end amount of payments,
by State, may 1972 }/

xeiutes vendor payments for medical care ard cases receiving only such poyrentay !

Sumber of recipients Payments to recipients } ’ Percentage change, fron-- ; /
State or : Total Average per-- April 1972 1n-- may 1972 in-~
feailies Total 2/ Cailéren paseo cebee-ab eihee of ;

. ‘ Feaily Recipient ‘| recipients Azount recipients Amount

Total.--.- 133,750 636,652 373,235 $34,926,600 $221.15 $55-40 4.5 5-5 -23-6 oLl-b
4 !

Califecccccsees 0,479 2.9/9 138,05 12,505,256 247-73 Ss. : -5-4 658 . -26.6 “9-6
COLO. cereecseee 2,261 10,535 ‘6,297 574,03 253-8) 5h. 39 3° ae -2.8
Del.ccccccceses 441 659 Ss 23,03 163.32 3h .ge M “17-5 @, 5 15.8 ! -20.0
Deo Cocccccecece 1,296 5,38 3,809 237 .zT9 183.37 44.08 5 oT 255-3 7206.1
BMawalice-cececs 1,151 5.3 3,072 S23.yll 38.30 79-12 79 x 6.5 +¢8.0 978.9
Uleccccccccccs 16,201 r 92,320 5 $6,030 5,060,299 275.46 55-20 2.4 -2-5 / @@r.6 ; 17-3)
Uiditieceeosnsens 953 2,005 1,728 1yy,178 237.6% 55-58 6.8 | -8.6 #36.3 -33.7
WALNO oe ccsccces ge $32 363 22,491 (222-73 3.59 ‘2.7 #30 83.7 -69.0
Wd ccoccvesceses 216 3,676 2,262 166,240 203-73 42.69 -$.8 #7.0 24.0 78.0
MeSOcoscececsess 2,343 1,551 7,16 655,567 292.6 59-35 a 2.6 -6 1.2 72.2
Wichessecrccoes 11, 3& 55,324 33,104 3,601,326 316.92 65.02 | 6.4 | 5.8 ‘$16.7 , 25.0
Micmeceseccseces 1,646 6,416 461% 641, 647 347.8 76.2% 2.6 2.7 o7%.7 7101.6
Bec reecceccsces ° i131 747 482 ° 28,279 215.87 37.84 #45 f -5.5 =37-5 4d .2
we Yococccccece 7,024 xz. 3 23,643 2,030, 67% 332.32 €7 .73 ~E.8 -9.6 61.1 / 752-8
CrilGesccccecees 2,70 €2 203 35, 2 ;$82,273 222.50 : 42.36 ; , ok “3 #4318 67.5
Caracoccocccess wT3 1,929 1,222 72,049 193.0% 38.29 3-3 3.5 “7.3 o4.1

Crefcosccevcecs 3,ff . 16,81& 9,072 @2) »*15 224.78 ay kS “15.3 12.7 21-2 #21.3 /
GB ovcccececcece 340 17.7 10.2% 1,052,254 2¢9.75 $3.10 2.3 7.2 9.3 15.2
| Pe Cee TFL \\) 3,42 2,215 182,776 23" .28 49.59 -3.9 -3.0 6.7 o4.4
WLAN ooccerecces 2,00 } 9.733 3,837 §$20.221 247.59 $1.38 °.7 -2.8 *11-5$ 54.4
Weciscdccevece E45 3.121 2,642 bees ts | 3 26 62.50 43.6 34 +33.8 40.9
Wach.o..--- cone $,e™’ Py 13.258 Lut. ~3e esF.3% £9.22 3.6 2 11.3 21.3
Ms Mhieds ee ene ‘Lp 10.553 926 ey S25 0h 25-93 9 o29.3 oS 2 “3.4
Wie. Weeweeees 2, lew 15,355 9,263 1,009,226 3.7.30 67. 9 +12.2 (3/) W/)

: /

of
be]

tute for t=:s se.cornt Of the nrogrua, shown separately bere, are incluied in Gata for the total program. All data eubdiect to revision.
Pant

Ls.clotes we: retipsents the chiliren anid 1 or bota parexte or + caretaser relative other than @ psrert in ies in which the requirements of such adults vere
ca:.siagered !W

- spue;s} uibsia Lh s}JEsNyIesSseyW
€°On e1ruiBsaia t°lh pue; Asew
0°St JUOWID A €°Sh ouyew
6" ht ye3n. z°19 eue}s ino}
g°lh sexo] $°zs Axon Uay
es
S°LE vessauuel 1°9S . sesuey
0°h9 eyo7eg YINOS z°04 emo |
L°l2 _ Bulposey yznoS oa. eve;pu}
“WNI pue;s| spouyy 6°St syourtil
9°SI OF1y OF49Nd 1°8S oyep |

ae e1uer|Asuuad S°L€ 1;emMeH
~ £75 u063i0 ee wens
he ewoye | 40 ; z°0S é e 161009
S*tl 0140 ‘ L°6h ep14ol4

$°S9 30729 4I40N 9°97 @1qwn,o) JO 33143510
9°21 eu!j;Ose) Y43J4ON Z°HS aseme| 9g
" 6°€h 4JOA MON S°9£ 3ND1329UU0)
og | a 02 1X3yW MON S°0Z opesolo)
2°€h R AKassor MeN S*Ht e1usoy11e9
2°22 asiysdwey MeN 0°€Z sesuexsy
Z°Lh epBAsN “YNI euoziiy
6°49 e%4Se1GaN 0°ls eysely
1°29 eueUuOW S’° fh eureqge|
% 97e35 % 93825

ZL61 °YwWw-"* Ne
“*$1143N3@ ATN33M WNWIXWW OL GFTLILND SLNWWIVID IN 40 1N3) W3d

2 XION3ddV¥

*eBesoae JN-20sy¥ Spee2xe ebes9Ae 903V Jein6boy,
ay

| ounp °S213s13e3

‘9 pue / sotqes ‘22/9 ‘(Z-v 340d0u4 SSIN) 2 '
gest Pie} yeuoi2en ‘A3HOSN

BDUCTSTSSY Diland *$213S13eIS [e!20G Joy 403U9)

:994N0S

68.°9h L6°S92 g0°61Z abesoay 93036 47
1°02 €6°91€ 25 °9hZ UISUOISIM “HZ
. 82°0€ 42° Ot! 96°60! . erus64s1A ISOM, *€Z
91°9€ 0° 6€Z 88 °Z0Z uoyburysem = *7Z
L2°S8 go°ligs 1g°Sz%-——.. }UOWIOA —*{Z
42°99 10° Lz LZ°ogt ye3n ‘OZ
f25°t-) QS 1€Z Ol’ €€Z pue;s} spoyy ‘61
28° HE 4° 997 29° 1€Z eyueajAsuusg *g|
$8°29 ZE°Z22 L4°6St vo6es0 “LI
6°65 29°961 89°9£1 ewoye|40 ‘91
gz°lLh 6° Z0Z 99°SSI o14y0 “SI
€6°48 zZ’gee 62° €SZ 440A MON ‘HI
Sz°SZ Z7L°€2Z £4°@hl exS®JQON “El
€6°911 - 02 6hHE Lz°7EZ e]OSouUIW ‘ZI
(2°88 6H’ 61E Qz°1€Z _ uebYyrIW “It
91°02 19°S9€ £0 SHE S2JesNyresseW ‘Ol
Lg°lh Li*t0Z o€°9SI puetAsew °*6
S8°08 19°022 91°6E1 eurew °g
1z2°2g €6°€9z ZZ°102 sesuey °/
19°St gi °zz LS°€2z syourtt) °9
05°28 ht HSE 46° 1L2 yyemey = °S
e(L°S9-) 69°SE1 91° 102 @1qunjo7 yo 32143814 “Hy
62° th st°€9 98 gil 0 osemeiog “f
92°92 €6°hhZ s9°991 opesoloy = *Z%
nE°LS $ “€E°797$ 66°407$ @yusos11e@) “yf

J04y 4e,nboy
Spoe02x3 s6es9Ay

quewbes Jn JuNOWwy

sjuouAeg A, wey
dN-904y Besoay

SjuowAeg Aj jwe4
‘dN-uou aes0ay

02025

” ZZ61 3NNf ‘SWWU90Nd JN-I03V HLIA
S3LVLS HZ NI 20SV 4N-NON GNV 4N-I0JV YIONN SLNBWAVd ATIWWS ATHLNOW 39VU3AV

@ XION3dd¥

59

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed December 11, 1972]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
MOTION TO INTERVENE

Now come Roger C,. and Arlene M. Derosia, and Larry,
Harold, Arthur, Mary and Brian Derosia, minor children
of Roger and Arlene Derosia, by their attorney, Richard
S. Kohn, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc. pursuant to Rule 24
(b) and (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to move
this Honorable Court to permit them to intervene in the
above case. In support of their motion herein, said parties
stipulate and certify as follows:

1. That they reside in Swanton, Franklin County in
the State of Vermont.

2. That their claims against the above defendants
present questions of law and/or facts in common with the
original plaintiffs’. main action in that the intervenors
‘are deprived of ANFC-UF because the father is receiv-
ing state" unemployment compensation, which is much
lower than‘the ANFC benefits. (Please see Intervenors’
complaint which is attached hereto.)

8. That their intervention in the above cause will not
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
of the original parties.

Dated at St. Johnsbury in. the County of Caledonia and
State of Vermont this 11 day of December, 1972.

/s/ Richard S. Kohn
; RICHARD S. KOHN
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.
St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819
56 Railroad Street
Attorney for Intervenors

wy

60

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 24, 1973]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
STIPULATION

ft is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the
undersigned attorneys for the respective parties hereto
as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Jean Glodgett and Deanne Glodgett are
citizens of the United States, residents of Orleans in the
State of Vermont, and the parents of plaintiff Tina
Glodgett, their minor child, who resides with them.

2 On December 17, 1971, Mr. Glodgett applied for
ANFC at the Newport District Office of the Department
of Social Welfare and his application was accepted. On
December 20, 1971, the family received its first check
in the amount of $93.00, covering the balance of Decem-__
ber. Thereafter, the family received a monthly benefit
of $239.00.

3 On January 10, 1972, Mr. Glodgett began receiving
unemployment compensation from New Hampshire in the
amount of $14.00 per week. On January 12, 1972, he
was notified by letter that his AN FC benefits would be
terminated beginning February 16, 1972, because he was
receiving unemployment compensation.

4. Mr. Glodgett stopped receiving unemployment com-
pensation in March, 1972. On April 5, 1972, a new ANFC
grant was approved for the family. The family received
a check for $223.00 for the balance of April and $239
beginning May 1. The grant was terminated on July
1 due to the fact that Mr. Glodgett had become employed.
On April 21, 1972, the family again received an ANFC
grant due to incapacity of Mr. Glodgett. The grant was
discontinued on November 16, 1972, when Mr. Glodgett
returned to work.

61

5. Plaintiffs Roger and Rosamond Percy are citizens
of the United States and residents of Orleans in the
State of Vermont. Plaintiffs Sheila, Charon, Roger, Mary,
Matthew, and Sharon Percy are their minor children
who reside with them.

6. Roger Percy was employed as a trucker by Orlando
Construction Company until December 4, 1972, when he
was laid off. He applied for ANFC-UF on December 6,
1972. On December 10, 1971, he began drawing unem-
ployment compensation in the amount of $43.00 per week.
His ANFC application was denied on December 20, 1971,
for the sole reason that he was receiving unemployment
compensation. If he was eligible for ANFC he would
have drawn $410.00 per month for his family. His monthly
unemployment compensation was approximately $172.00.
On several occasions the family obtained General As-
sistance bénefits to help them buy groceries. As of Oc-
tober 28, 1972, Mr. Percy was no longer eligible for un-
employment compensation. As of November 6, 1972, his
family has been receiving ANFC-UF.

7. Roger C. Derosia and Arlene M. Derosia are citi-
zens of the United States and residents of Swanton in the
State of Vermont. Larry, Harold, Arthur, Mary and -
Brian Derosia are their minor children and reside with
them. Mr. Derosia was employed by O. C. McCuin in
Highgate Center, Vermont, for three years. He ter-
minated his employment on August 25, 1972. On Sep-
tember 8, 1972, he applied for ANFC-UF. The Depart-
ment of Social Weifare put the family on General As-
sistance. On or about October 25, 1972, a decision was
made to grant the family ANFC-UF retroactive to Sep-
tember 24, 1972. The grant was in the amount of $394.00
per month. On November 6, 1972, Mrs. Derosia notified
the Department of Social Welfare that the family was
getting unemployment compensation of $56.00 per week.
For this reason, the ANFC-UF giant was terminated as
of December 1, 1972. Se

—

&

62

Dated at St. Johnsburg, Vermont this 11 day of De
cember, 1972.

/s/ Richard S. Kohn
RicHArD S. KOHN, ESQ.
56 Railroad Street
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.
St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this — day of Decem-
ber, 1972.

/s/ D. Eugene Wilson
EUGENE WILSON, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
8 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Attorney for Defendant Betit

Dated at Rutland, Vermont, this “__ day of December,
1972.

/s/ Carter LaPrade
CARTER LAPRADE, ESQ.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Federal Building
Rutland, Vermont 05701
Attorney for Defendant Richardson

63

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
eae FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 2, 1973]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES

1. Bert N. Smith, I have a Bachelor of Arts degree
from the University of Vermont in Burlington, a Mas-
ter of Social Work degree from the University of Con-
necticut in Hartford, Connecticut, and am a member of
the Academy of Certified Social Workers.

2. Approximately 15 years.

8. Director of the Aid to Needy Families with Children
Program.

4. Since April 14, 1971.

5. I am directly responsible to the Commissioner of
Social Welfare for all matters pertaining to the ANFC
Program administration to include program planning, le-
gislation, policies, procedure, evaludtion, and budgeting. -

6. Yes. :

7. Yes.

8. No, since the family must first live upon the UCC
benefits available each week in addition to having monthly
income of $1.00 below the payment level under ANFC.

9. Not answered.

10. As indicated in answer #8, General Assistance is
not automatic in such cases. In most instances the level
of UCC benefits is less than the ANFC payment stand-
ards. It is quite likely if UCC benefits are exhausted and
no money is available to meet an essential emergency
need, some General Assistance might become available.
However, even then the combination of both UCC and
GA benefits would still not equal. the level of ——
under ANFC ee

11. Yes.

64 2

12. Sex discrimination is evidenced by the application
of the Federally mandated law since a female may draw
UCC and ANFC benefits concurrently while a man can-

. not.

13. Yes. ,

14, It is my personal opinion that on its face the Fed-
eral law is irrational when viewed from the knowledge
of present day job markets. The only basis I can see for
the law was that men are viewed by Congress and society
as the principal bread winner in a family and thus it
would appear that keeping compensation during a period
of unemployment at a low level would cause them to seek
work more actively and eagerly. This philosophy makes
no sense at all when suitable jobs are not available. Fur-
ther the Federal law mandates that a father be unem-
ployed for 30 days before he be considered to meet the
Federal definition and certainly after this period if he is
not employed but receiving UCC benefits I can see nothing
to be gained by having a family with minor children living
on a standard which may be less than that recognized
by the Welfare agency as necessary to sustain a level
of decency and health.

15. No. Only the Commissioner of Social Welfare is
so empowered. I can recommend*on matters pertaining
to Welfare policy. re

16. Not answered. a

17. Yes. -

18. It is my opinion Congress should change the Fed-
eral law to remove the prohibition of concurrent receipt
of UCC and ANFC benefits when the UCC benefits do
not equal the state ANFC assistance level. My reasons
for this position have been clarified by my answer to
question # 14.

19. Yes. SDT sf
. 20. It is my opinion that there is no evidence to in-
dicate that the Federal law has had the effect of in-.

f 65

creasing the number of families on the ANFC Program
’ because of a deserting father.

/s/ Bert N. Smith
BERT N. SMITH
ANFC Program Director for
the State of Vermont

66
AFFIDAVIT

I, Bert N. Smith, ANFC Program Director for the
State of Vermont, being duly sworn according to law,
_ depose and state the the answers to the aforesaid In-

terrogatories are correct to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief.

/s/ Bert N. Smith
BerT N. SMITH
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of
Sept., 1972. i

/s/ Samuel A. McLaughlin
i Notary ‘Public

67

' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 5, 19738]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
COMPLAINT

I. This is a suit for a declaratory judgment that 42
U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) ; 45 C.F.R. §§ 233.100(a) (5)
(ii) and 233.100(c) (v) (b); and Vermont Welfare Reg-
ulation 2831.31(3) violate the due process and equal pro-
tection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments
to the United States Constitution insofar as they render
children of unemployed fathers ineligible to receive ANFC
benefits during any week that the father is receiving
unemployment compensation under state unemployment
compensation law. The action against the Commissioner
of Social Welfare is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plain-
tiffs also seek damages and injunctive relief against the
Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Social Wel-
fare and relief in the nature of mandamus as against
the Secretary of the Departriient of Health, Education

and Welfare.
_II JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction against the Commissioner of the Ver-
mont Department of Social Welfare is invoked pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1843(3)-(4) because it is brought to redress
the deprivation under color of state law of a right se-
cured by the fourteenth amendment; by 28 U.S.C. §
1331 because it arises under the Constitution and the
amount in controversy exceeds $10,000; and by the doc-
trine of ancillary jurisdiction. © —_

B. Jurisdiction against the defendant Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare is im-
parted by 28 U.S.C. § 1861, because plaintiffs request re-
lief in the nature of mandamus and 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because it arises under the Constitution and the amount
in controversy exceeds $10,000.

68
III PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs Roger and Arlene Derosia are citizens
of the United States and the State of Vermont and resi-
dents of Swanton, Vermont. Plaintiffs Larry, Harold,
Arthur, Mary and Brian Derosia are the minor children
= Roger and Arlene Derosia and sue in their own be-

alf.

B. Defendant Richardson is the Secretary of the Unit-
ed States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §602(b), he is authorized to
approve state plans for the implementation of ANFC.

C. Defendant Betit is Commissioner of the Vermont
Department of Social Welfare. Pursuant to 33 V.S.A.
$ 2505, he is the chief administrator and executive offi-
cer. Through his agents, the plaintiffs and the class they
represent have been denied ANFC benefits.

D. Plaintiff Roger Derosia was employed by the 0O.C.
McCuin Company of Highgate Center, Vermont, for three
years. His employment was terminated on August 25,
1972. On October 25, 1972, an application was made for
ANFC-UF. The application was granted retroactive to
September 24, 1972. The amount of the ANFC-UF grant
was $394.

On November 6, 1972, Mrs. Derosia notified the Wel-
fare Department that they had begun receiving state un-
employment compensation in the amount of $56 per
week. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) and
F.S.P.M. 2331.31 (3), the ANFC-UF grant was terminated
effective December 1, 1972. The difference in income
to the family is $153.20 per month.

IV STATEMENT OF CLAIM

A. The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§606 and
607) provides for assistance to needy families with de-
pendent children if the children have been deprived of
parental support or care due to death, abandonment, phy-
sical or mental incapacity or unemployment of a parent.

B. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security
Act provides that assistance under the aid to families

69

with dependent children program for unemployed parents
cannot be granted if the father is receiving unemploy-
ment compensation. Aid must be denied for any week
in which the father received unemployment compensation
regardless of the amount and of the unmet need of the
family. Section 2831.81(3) of the Vermont Welfare
Manual implements this requirement for Vermont.

The needs of the plaintiffs for a minimum subsistence
compatible with health and-decency are computed by the
Department of Social Welfare and appear in the Vermont
Welfare Manual at Section 2211.2. The amount received
by the plaintiffs under the unemployment compensation
program is considerably less than the amount the Depart-
ment has adopted as the minimum necessary for a decent
and healthful subsistence.

42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii), 45 CF.R. §§ 238.100:
(a) (5) (ii) and 288.100(c) (v) (b), and Vermont Welfare
Regulation 2331.81(8). violate the due process and equal
protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments °
for the following reasons:

1. Section 607 creates two classes of children whose
fathers are unemployed, those whose fathers are receiv-
ing state unemployment compensation and those who are
not. Needy children are excluded solely because their
fathers receive unemployment compensation benefits even
though such benefits may be far below what would other-
wise be received under public assistance. Plaintiffs would
be eligible for assistance if they were receiving amounts
equal to their unemployment benefits in any other form
of income or benefits. Having eligibility turn on the source
of the income rather than the amount constitutes an
invidious discrimination against the former group of
children.

2. 42 U.S.C. § 606 provides ANFC eligibility for chil-
dren who are deprived of parental support or care due to
continued absence of one parent from the home. Eligibility
under section 606 does not depend upon whether the
parent in the home is receiving unemployment or not.
Thus, the same children who are ineligible under section
607 because the father is receiving unemployment would

. 70

be eligible for ANFC under section 606 if either parent
deserted the family. The s‘atutory scheme which penal-
izes children because their parents are not separated is
arbitrary and invalid under the ninth, fifth and four-
teenth amendments.

Subparagraphs 1 and 2 above are equally estate
to 45 C.F.R. §§ 238.100(&) (5) (ii) and 233.100(e) (v)
(b) and to Vermont Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3).

V. CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff’s represent the class of those families resid-
ing in the State of Vermont who are eligible for the
ANFC-UF program hut for their fathers’ receipt of or
eligibility for unemployment compensation and as a re-
sult of this exclusion from ANFC are receiving assist-
ance insufficient to meet their needs. Plaintiffs sue on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
pursuant to Rule 23, F.R.C.P.:

(a) The members of this class are so numerous that
joinder of them all is impracticabie..

(b) There are questions of law and fact common to
all members of the class, and the common questions of
law and fact predominate over any questions effecting
only individual members of the class.

(c) The claims of the representative plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(d) Defendants have acted or refused to act on
grounds generally applicable to the class.

(e) An adjudication of the rights of the named rep-
resentatives of the class would, as a practical matter, be
dispositive of the interests of all other members.

VI. THREE JUDGE COURT

The plaintiffs request that this action be heard by a
three judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281
and 2282 because plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction
against the enforcement of an act of Congress and the

71

regulations of statewide applicability on the ground that
they are repugnant to the Constitution.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that:

1. This court assume jurisdiction of this cause and
convene a three judge court pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.
§§ 2281, 2282 and 2284;

2. This court issue an order declaring that this is
an appropriate class action and granting plaintiffs leave
to proceed with this action as a class action;

3. The court declare 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (ce) (ii) and
45 C.F.R. §§ 233.100(a) (5) (ii) and 238.100(c) (v) (b) in
violation of the due process clause of the fifth amend-
ment and enjoin its enforcement as to plaintiffs and the
class they represent;

4, The court declare Vermont Welfaré Regulations
2331.31(3) in violation of the equal protection clause of
the fourteenth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as
to the plaintiffs and the class they represent;

5. That the Vermont Commissioner of Social Welfare
be enjoined to pay retroactive benefits to the plaintiffs
and the class they represent in the same amount that they
would have been paid under 42 U.S.C. § 606;

6. That a writ in the nature of mandamus issue against
the secretary of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare ordering him to approve the Vermont ANFC-
_ UF plan without requiring it to contain a provision
based on 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (ce) (ii) ;

72

7. Grant such further relief as the court may deem
just and appropriate.
ROGER C. DEROSIA; ARLENE M. DEROSIA

LARRY DEROSIA, HAROLD DEROSIA, ARTHUR
DEROSIA, MARY DEROSIA, BRIAN DEROSIA

By /s/ Richard S. Kohn
Richard S, Kohn
Vermont Legal Aid, Ine.
56 Railroad Street
St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dec. 11, 1972.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND CIRCUIT

CHAMBERS OF

JAMES L. OAKES Ps
. Circuit Judge
Brattleboro, Vermont 03301

March 6, 1973

Richard S. Kohn, Esq.
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.
St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 |
Benson Scott, Esq. ;
Assistant Attorney General
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
William Gray, Esq.

Assistant United States Attorney
Rutland, Vermont 05701

Re Glodgett v. Betit, Civil No. 6550

Gentlemen:

In your respective exchange of briefs, would you please
tell us (1) if a husband is working but his earnings are

73

less than the amount he (and his family) would be en-
titled to under the ANFC or AFDC programs, would
the difference between his wages and the amount of
family need be paid under present welfare statutes and
regulations; and (2) if the answer to the first question

is in the affirmative, how does the Government rationalize ~

such treatment of a family with a working father with
the treatment of a family with an unemployed father
_ who presumably is receiving only half of his weekly
wages as unemployment compensation; and (8) if the
answer to the first question is in the negative, on what
basis is such payment not made?

We assume that Mr. Gray will communicate this re-
quest to Mr. LaPrade, and that Mr. Kohn will similarly
communicate it to Ms. Kaufman.

Very truly yours,

‘

/8/ James L. Oakes
James L. Oakes
US. Circuit Judge
ce Hon. James S. Holden
Hon. Albert W. Coffrin
Hon. Edward J. Trudell

47

74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 16, 1973]
| Title Omitted in Printing}

MOTION FOR LEAVE:TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff moves the court for leave to file an amended
complaint, a copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit
A on the ground that the issue raised by the amended
pleading may permit the court to avoid decision of a
constitutional question.

/s/ Richard S. Ko
Richard S. Kon
Attorney for Plaintifts
Vermont Legal (Aid, Inc.
56 Railroad Stréet
St. Johnsbury, Vérmont

March 13, 1973

75

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
[Filed April 19, 1973]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
ORDER
Upon consideration of motion to file amended com-
plaint of the above named plaintiff intervenors, filed
March 16, 1973, it is hereby ORDERED:
Motion granted.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 1973.
/8/ James L. Oakes
James L. Oakes
United States Circuit J udge
/8/ James §. Holden

James S. Holden |
Chief United States District J udge

/8/ Albert W. Coffrin
United States District J udge

76

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[ Filed October 3, 1973]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
MOTION TO INTERVENE

Now come Robert and Tiana Spicer, and Samantha
and Stephanie. Perry, minor children of Tiana Spicer, by
their attorneys, Kathleen M. Mitchell and Vermont Legal
Aid, Inc., pursuant to Rule 24(b) and (c), Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, to move this Honorable Court to per-
mit them to intervene in the above case. In support of.
their motion herein, said parties stipulate and certify as
follows:

1. That they reside in Springfield, Windsor County in
the State of Vermont.

2. That their claims against the above defendants

present questions of law and/or facts in common with the
original plaintiffs’ main action in that the intervenors are
deprived of ANFC-UF because the father is receiving
state unemployment compensation, which is much lower
than the ANFC benefits. (Please see Intervenor’s com-
plaint which is attached hereto.)

3. That their interven in the above cause will not
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
of the original parties.

Dated at Springfield in the County of Windsor and
State of Vermont this 28th day of September, 1973.

/8/ Kathleen M. Mitchell
Kathleen M. Mitchell
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

15 South Street
Springfield, Vermont 05156
Attorney for Intervenors

CTI RI

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed November 6, 1973]
[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION FOR RE HEARING ON DISMISSAL
OF THE CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs move the court for a re-hearing on the
question of the dismissal of the class aspect of the above
captioned case for the reasons (1) that the court should
not have dismissed _ plaintiffs’ request for designation of
their action as a class suit without a hearing, and (2)
that under F.R.Civ.P. 56(d) the court should have denied
summary judgment on the' question of class relief and
set that issue for trial, Plaintiffs seek a modification of
the court’s opinion to enable-them to present evidence
on the scope of the class and for the purpose of de-
termining what shall constitute notice to the members of
the class pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(c).

Dated: November 4, 1973

/s/ Richard §. Kohn
_.. Richard S. Kohn
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.
56 Railroad Street ,
St. Johnsbury, Vt.
Attorney for the plaintiffs

78

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed December 17, 1973]
[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
af
Defendant moves the court to set aside the findings of
fact and conclusions of law entered herein on the twenty-
third day of October, 1973; and to grant defendant a
new trail under F.R. Civ. P. 59(a) on the — that
the Court erred in: ©

(1) Ruling that they could not find anything in the
legislative history to prohibit giving an individual
the option of UCC or ANFC-UF;

(2) Affording an individual an option, by the in-
terpretation that 42 USC 605 provides for the-pro-
tection and similar treatment to those individuals
who receive outside income; and

(3) Not allowing counsel the opportunity to “brief
the option position.

Defendant seeks a new trial to enable them to show
how the opinion of the twenty-third day of October, 1973,
will cause irreparable financial harm to the defendant.

18/ David + Kalib
'Davip L. KALIB
Assistant Attorney General
State of Vermont ,
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont
Attorney for the Defendants

79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed January 18, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR
TEMPORARY RELIEF

Now come Tina, William and Sean Sarazin, minor
children of Mary and William Sarazin, by their attorneys,
Mary Just Skinner and Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., pursuant
to Rule 24(b) and (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
to move this Honorable Court to permit them to intervene
in the above case. In support of their motion herein, said
parties stipulate and certify as follows:

1. That they reside in Barre, Washington County in
the State of Vermont.

2. That their claims against the above defendants
present questions of law and/or facts in common with the
original plaintiffs’ main action in that the intervenors _
are deprived of ANFC-UF because the father is receiving
state unemployment compensation, which is much lower
than the ANFC benefits,

3. That their intervention in the above cause will not
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
of the original parties,

And now comes Tina, William and Sean Sarazin, minor
children of Mary and William Sarazin, by their attor-
neys, Mary Just Skinner and Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.,
pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to
move this Honorable Court to permit them to intervene
in the above case. In support of their motion herein,
said parties stipulate and certify as follows:

1. That they will suffer immediate and irreparable
injury if they are not granted a temporary restraining
order in that they will not have sufficient income to sup-
port themselves and their family. '

80

2. That they will suffer irreparable injury if they are
not granted a temporary restraining order in that their
monthly income will be approximately half of the standard
of need set by the Vermont Department of Social Wel-
fare to meet a family’s minimum needs.

3. No undue delay or hardship will result to the
defendants in that this Court has already held that an
individual eligible for both state unemployment com-
pensation benefits and an Aid to Families with Needy
Children-Unemployed Father grant, (ANFC-UF) has the
option to choose receipt of benefits from the program that
yields more income.

4. Justice and equity require the granting of this
motion.

5. There is a likelihood that they will prevail on the
merits.

6. Such other grounds as may appear on oral argument.

Dated this 16th day of January, 1974 in Montpelier,
Vermont.

/s/ Mary Just Skinner
Mary Just Skinner, Esq.
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.
26 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602

81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed January 18, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
AFFIDAVIT

William Sarazin, being duly Sworn, deposes and states:

1. He resides at 9 Bugbee Avenue, Barre, Vermont
with his wife Mary and three minor children, William,
Jr., 11 years, Tina, Ten years, and Sean, 9 months.

2. On December 7, 1973, he was laid off his job as
window cleaner at Stanley E. Leszko, Window Cleaner,
RFD #3, Barre, Vermont. Prior te being laid off, he
earned $67.80 net per week. At that time he had only
himself, his wife and his son Sean to support.

3. On or about December 26, 1973, he applied for an
ANFC-UF grant at the Barre District office of the Ver-
mont Department of Social Welfare. At that time he was
\ told that he was eligible as of January 10, 1974 for
\ ANFC-UF benefits in the amount of $332.00 per month.

4. On January 10, 1974, he returned to the Barre ©
District office and was told that he would not receive
ANFC-UF benefits because he had received on that date
a state unemployment compensation check in the amount
of $40.00. r

5. If he continues to receive only $40 per week from
state unemployment compensation benefits his total income
per month will be $160.00 from unemployment compensa-
tion plus approximately $60.00 per month part-time work
from his former employer.

6. At the present time his expenses are approximately
as follows: ;

rent—$65 per month

food—$35 per week ($150 a month)

car payments—$10 per week ($242 owed)
hospital bill—$10 per month

doctor’s bill—$10 per month ($200 owed )

;

3

>

:
eee ee a en eS ee ee ae

itt Tey wae Rr

we

82

7. He planned to move to a larger apartment in early
January, 1974 to accommo?ate his family. He has been
forced to move in with lus mother and her grandchild
and to share expenses with her because ,he could not
afford his own apariment. He had already contracted to
take an apartment at Highgate Apartments in Barre,
Vermont but when he found out he would not get an
ANFC-UF grant he could not afford to make the move.

8.' He bought a used car for $250.00 to get to work.
It broke down and had to be towed to a repair shop. He
has to pay $70.00 in repair and towing charges before he
can get the car back. Without this car he has no regular
way to get to his part-time work at various locations.

9. At the present time he is unable to support his
family on $160.00 a month from unemployment compensa-
tion and from his part-time work. He cannot feed his
family and pay his rent and make payments on his debts.
Without his car he may not be able to continue his part
time work.

10. He and his family will suffer irreparable damage
because they don’t have sufficient money to live on. He
would be better able to ineet the needs of himself and his
family on the $332.00 per month ANFC-UF benefits.

Dated this 17th day of January, 1974 in Montpelier,

Vermont.
- /s/ William Sarazin
William Sarazin
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 17th day of

January, 1974

/s/ Anne Cheoldi
Notary Public

PUES Resear Aen Real Vian Lika Nera 4 it pres

at i es ee Re ROPES Te “LAPTA

83

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed Janwarvy 23, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
AMENDED COMPLAINT OF INTERVENTION

I. This is a suit for a declaratory judgment that 42
U.S.C. Section 607(b) (2) (e) (ii); 45 C.F.R\ Sections
223.100(a) (5) (ii) and 238.100(c) (v) (b); and Vermont
Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3) violate the due process
and equal protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution insofar
as they render children of unemployed fathers ineligible
to receive ANFC benefits during any week that the father
is receiving unemployment compensation under state un-
employment compensation law. The action against the
Commissioner of Social Welfare is based on 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. Plaintiffs also seek damages and injunctive
relief against the Commissioner of Vermont Department
of Social Welfare and relief in the nature of mandamus
as against the Secretary of the Departmeni of Health,
Education and Welfare.

II. JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction against the Commissioner of the Ver-
mont Department of Social Welfare is invoked pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(3)-(4) -because it is brought
to redress the deprivation under color of state law of a
right secured by the fourteenth amendment; by 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331 because it arises under the Constitution and
the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000; and by the
doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. ,

B. Jurisdiction against the Defendant Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare is im-
parted by 28 U.S.C. Section 1861, because plaintiffs re-
quest relief in the nature of mandamus and 28 U.S.C.

84

Section 1331 because it arises under the Constitution and
the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

Ill. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs Mary and William Sarazin are citizens
of the United States and the State of Vermont and resi-
dents of Barre, Vermont. Plaintiffs William Jr., Tina and
Sean are the minor children of William and Mary Sarazin
and sue in their own behalf.

B. Defendant Weinberger is the Secretary of the
United States Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 602(b), he is au-
thorized to, approve state plans for the implementation
of ANFC.

C. Defendant Philbrook is Commissioner of the Ver-
mont Department of Social Welfare. Pursuant to 33
V.S.A. Section 2505, he is the chief administrator and
executive officer. Through his agents, the plaintiffs and
the class they represent have been denied ANFC benefits.

D. Plaintiff William Sarazin became unemployed on
or about December 7, 1973. On or about December 26,
1973, the application was made for ANFC-UF. He was
told that as of January 10, 1974, he would be eligible
for ANFC-UF in the amount of $332.00 per month for
his family of five. .

E. On January 10, 1974, Mr. Sarazin went back to
the welfare office where he was told he was not eligible
for the ANFC-UF program because he had drawn a
state unemployment compensation check in the amount of
$40.00. He never received a written notice that he was
not eligible for ANFC-UF grant. The difference in in-
come to the family is $172.00 per month.

F. Mr. Sarazin. stands ready to forego his state un-
employment compensation check in the amount of $40.00
per week ($160.00) per month) to receive $332.00 per
month from the Welfare Department.

3
3
=

3

85
IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

A. The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 606
and 607) provides for assistance to needy families with
dependent children if the children have been deprived of
parental support or care due to death, abandonment, phy-
sical and mental incapacity or unemployment of parent.

B. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security
Act provides that assistance under the aid to families
with dependent children program for unemployed parents
cannot be granted if the father is receiving unemployment
compensation. Aid must be denied for any week in which
the father receives unemployment compensation regard-
less of the amount and of the unmet need of the family.
Section 2331.31(3) of the Vermont Welfare Manual im-
plements this requirement for Vermont.

The needs of the plaintiffs for a minimum subsistence
compatible with health and decency are computed by the
Department of Social Welfare and appear in the Vermont
Welfare Manual at Section 2211.2. The amount re-
ceived for the plaintiffs under the unemployment com-
pensation program is considerably less than the amounts
the Department has adopted as the minimum necessary
for a decent and healthful subsistence.

42 U.S.C. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii), 45 C.F.R. Section
233.100(a) (5) (ii) and Vermont Welfare Regulations
2331.31(3) violate the due process and equal protection
clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments for the
following reasons:

A. Section. 607 creates two classes of children whose
fathers are unemployed: those whose fathers were re-
ceiving state unemployment compensation and those who
are not. Needy children are excluded solely because their
fathers receive unemployment compensation even though
such benefits may be far below what would otherwise be
received under public assistance. Plaintiffs would be
eligible for assistance if they were receiving amounts equa!
to their unemployment benefits in any other form of in-
come or benefits. Disqualifying families from ANFC-UF

86

because the father receives unemployment compensation
constitutes an invidious discrimination.

B. 42 U.S.C. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) is unconstitu-
tional because it only disqualifies those children whose
fathers are receiving unemployment compensation. This
is an arbitrary distinction conditioned solely on which
parent is receiving unemployment.

C. 42 U.S.C. Section 606 provides ANFC eligibility for
children who are deprived of parental Support or care
due to continued absence of one parent from the home.
Eligibility under section 606 does not depend upon whether
the parent in the home is receiving unemployment or not.
Thus, the same children who are ineligible under Section
607 because the father is receiving unemployment com-
pensation would be eligible for ANFC under Section 606
if either parent deserted the family. A statutory scheme
which penalizes children because their parents are not
separated is arbitrary and invalid ‘under the ninth, fifth
and fourteenth amendments,

Subparagraphs A, B and C above are equally applicable
to 45 C.F.R. Section 233.100 and Vermont Welfare Regu-
lation, 233.31(3).

D. Vermont Welfare Regulation 2831.31(8), as ap-
plied, violates 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b) (2) (ce) (ii) and
45 C.F.R. Section 233.100(a) (5) (ii) because it is in-
terpreted to disqualify families in which the father is
eligible to receive unemployment compensation as wel]
as those in which the father is actually receiving unem-
ployment compensation.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that:

1. This Court allow plaintiffs to intervene in this
cause;

2. The Court declare 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b) (2) (e)
(ii) and 45 C.F.R. Section 223.100(a) (5) (ii) and 233.100
(c)(v)(b) in yiolation of .the due process clause of the
fifth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as to plain-
tiffs;

? ay ; oS DR ey a

ba

87

3. The Court declare Vermont Welfare Regulation
2331.31(8) in violation of the equal protection clause of
the fourteenth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as
to the plaintiffs;

4. That the Vermont Commissioner of Social Welfare
be enjoined to pay retroactive benefits to the plaintiffs
in the same amount that they would have been paid
under 42 U.S.C. Section 606; :

5. That a writ in the nature of mandamus issue
against the Secretary of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare ordering him to approve the
Vermont ANFC-UF plan without requiring it to contain
a provision based on 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b) (2) (e) (ii) ;

6. That the Court interpret 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b}
(2) (ce) (ii) to disqualify families from ANFC-UF bene-
fits only for any week in which the father is actually
receiving unemployment compensation.

7. Grant such further relief as the court may deem
just and appropriate.

WILLIAM SARAZIN, MARY
SARAZIN

By: /s/ Mary Just Skinner
Mary Just Skinner, Esquire
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.
26 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602

88
VERIFICATION

We solemnly swear that We have read the above Com-
plaint and know the contents thereof, and that the same
is true to the best of our knowledge, except the matters
stated on my information and belief, and that as to those
matters We believe them to be true.

/s/ William Sarazin
William Sarazin

/8/ Mary Sarazin
Mary Sarazin

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 16th day of
January, 1974,

/8/ Mary Just Skinner
Notary Public

89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed January 25, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
STIPULATION

Plaintiff-intervenors Mary and William Sarazin, in-
dividually and on behalf of their minor children Tina,
William, Jr, and Sean, by and through their attorney
Mary Just Skinner, Esquire and Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.,
and defendant Paul Philbrook (originally Joseph Betit)
by and through his attorney David Kalib, Esquire, here-
by agree and stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff-intervenor shall forego receipt of further
state unemployment compensation benefits after J anuary
24, 1974. ‘

2. Defendant shall grant plaintiff ANFC-UF benefits
as of January 28, 1974 until plaintiff ceases to be eligible
for such benefits.

3. Defendant waives the requirement of posting the
bond of fifty dollars ($50) set by the Court on J anuary
23, 1974,

4. Upon the Court’s entry of a final judgment in the
case at bar plaintiff-intervenor shall become a member of
the class covered by this Court’s Orders of October 17,
1973 and December 28, 1973, and shall be subject to any
further order of the Court staying the effect of such
final judgment. In no event shall the merger of plain-
tiff-intervenor into the class covered by the Court’s final
judgment cause any hiatus in the receipt of ANFC-UF
benefits to plaintiff-intervenor so long as he remains
eligible for such benefits.

90

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 24th day of Jan-
uary, 1974,

/s/ David Kalib
David Kalib, Esquire
for Defendant Paul Philbrook

/8/ Mary Just Skinner

Mary Just Skinner, Esquire
for plaintiff-intervenors,
William and Mary Sarazin,
individually and on behalf

_of their minor children,
Tina, William, Jr. and
Sean Sarazin

-

‘91 \s
UNITED STATES ‘DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
. [Filed January 25, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
ORDER

Plaintiffs having moved this Court pursuant to Rules
24(b) and (c), and 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
for a leave to intervene in the case at bar and for a
temporary restraining order restraining Paul Philbrook
(originally Joseph Betit) and Elliot Richardson from re-
fusing to grant Plaintiff Aid to Families with Needy
Children-Unemployed Father benefits (ANCHE) solely
on the ground that he is receiving unemployment com-
pensation benefits from the State of Vermont. This mo-
tion having been considered by this Court: '

Upon the verified complaint, affidavit, and memorandum
submitted on behalf of the parties, upon hearing on
January 24, 1974, upon the finding by this Court that:

1) Plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants present
questions of law and fact in common with the original
plaintiffs main action; |

2) Plaintiffs’ intervention will not unduly delay the
case at bar; |

3) Plaintiffs are now suffering irreparable damage by
being denied ANFC-UF benefits ; and |

4) Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits in the
case at bar, and upon stipulation of the parties that
plaintiff-intervenor William Sarazin shall forego receipt
of further state unemployment compensation benefits after
January 24, 1974, that defendant Vermont Department
of Social Welfare shall grant plaintiffs ANFC-UF bene-
fits as of January 28, 1974 until plaintiffs cease to be
eligible for such benefits; that defendant Department of
Social Welfare waives the requirement of posting the
bond of fifty dollars ($50) set on January 28, 1974,

92

and that entry of a final judgment order in the case at
bar shall result in plaintiff-intervenors merger into the
class of persons covered by the Orders of October 17,
1973 and December 28, 1973, whereupon plaintiff-in-
tervenors shall be subject to any further order of the
court staying the effect of such final judgment, it is

' ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

Plaintiff-intervenors William and Mary Sarazin, in-
dividually and on behalf of their minor- children Tina,
William, Jr. and Sean Sarazin are hereby intervened as
party-plaintiffs in the instant case and defendants, their
successors in office, agents, and employees, and all other
persons in active concert with them, are hereby restrained
. from refusing. to grant Plaintiff ANFC-UF benefits as
of January 28, 1974 for so long as Plaintiff remains
eligible and foregoes receipt of Vermont unemployment
compensation benefits. |

Dated at Rutland, Vermont this 25th day of January,
1974.

/8/ James S. Holden ©
Judge James S. Holden
United States District Court

93

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION TO STAY, INCLUDING SUPERSEDEAS
IN DISTRICT COURT

Defendants move this Court to stay the enforcement of
its judgment in this action pending the disposition of de-

fendants’ appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

/8/ David L. Kalib
Davip L. KALIB
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3445

Attorney for Appellants/Defendants

94

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
AFFIDAVIT

ROBERT M. SALIBA, ‘being duly sworn and deposed,
says:

1. For the last 414 years, I have been involved in
systems and programming with the computer operations
for the Vermont Department of Employment _Sacurity,
a position I currently maintain. Prior to that“time,}I have
had programming experience with the Vermont way
Department and I have attended courses of instruction
in programming with the International Business Machine
Corporation. .

2. At the request of the Commissioner for the Depart-
ment of Social Welfare, I have prepared a study on the
average weekly claim load of the Department of Employ-
ment Security. The purpose of this study is to determine
the number of individuals potentially eligible, concur-
rently, for both unemployment insurance and Aid to N eedy
Families—Unemployed Father benefits. .The information
for this study came from Departmental weekly reports
which are submitted by local offices from their claims files.

8. The findings of the study are as. follows:

a. During the calendar year 1948, the total number
of claims filed was 268,270, or an average weekly
total of 5159.

b. In order to determine the number of individuals
potentially eligible concurrently for both ANFC-UF
welfare and unemployment benefits, I had our com-
puter sort into two categories the first 5200 claimants
{rounding 5159—the average number of claimants at
any given period] who have received at least one pay-
ment and who have entered the file subsequent to

95

June 30, 1978, the date dependency information was
entered on the files. The first category of the 5200 is
made up of those individuals presumably ineligible
for ANFC-UF (i.e. anyone with no dependents, or
one dependent, [who is presumed to be a spouse],
or any female claimant). The second category is
made up of those who are potentially eligible for
ANFC-UF benefits, namely those families headed by
males with two or more dependents.

c. It was found on two Separate computer runs,
(January 25, 1974 and January 81, 1974) that of
the first fifty-two hundred (5200) names, as cal-
culated in a. above, _approximately fifteen hundred
(1500) [In actuality the January 25 run revealed
1496 potentially eligible, while the January 81 run
showed 1480 potential eligibles] would fall into the
potentially eligible group. .

The attached results accurately reflect the content of
our file on January 25 and J anuary 31, 1974.

/8/ Robert M. Saliba
j . ROBERT M. SALIBA

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 15th day of
February, 1974.

/s/ David Kalib
Notary Public

NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.

96

-

REQUEST REPORT FOR UI DIRECTOR

CLAIMANT SAMPLE SIZE 5200

OF FEMALES = 1580
OF MALES 0 DEPS = 1409
OF MALES 1 DEPS= 715
OF MALES 2 DEPS = 473
OF MALES 8 DEPS= 428
OF MALES 4 DEPS = 331
OF MALES 5 DEPS= 264

01/25/74

AVE WBA = 72
AVE WBA = 74
AVE WBA = 74
AVE WBA = 74

REQUEST REPORT FOR UI DIRECTOR

01/31/74

CLAIMANT SAMPLE SIZE 5200

No. of Females = 1584
No. of Males 0 Deps = 1427
No. of Males 1 Deps = 709

. Of Males 2 Deps= 450 Ave WBA = 72

No. of Males 3 Deps= 429 Ave WBA = 74
No. of Males 4 Deps= 324 Ave WBA = 74
No. of Males 5 Deps= 277 Ave WBA = 74

97

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
AFFIDAVIT

LAWRENCE MASTERSON, being duly sworn, de-
poses and says:

1. I am Agency Principal Accountant, responsible for
financial reports and projects of the Department of Social
Welfare. .

2. I, as Principal Accountant, have had the responsi-
bility for preparing and working with the Department
of Social Welfare’s budget since 1969.

3. From time to time, I have been requested, and as
part of my normal responsibilities I have provided, in-
formation to various individuals with respect to the De-
partment’s budget.

4. In the normal course of my employment responsi-
bilities, I have prepared an analysis of the Department’s
budget expenditure and projected expenditures for both
the first half of fiscal year 1974 and the entire fiscal
year 1974, respectively.

5. The results of this analysis are as follows:

a. The Department’s latest projection of expenditures
for FY 74 is $55,185,210. .

b. From July 1, 1973 through December 31, 1973,
it was projected that the Department would spend
$28,440,900 or 51.5% of the total budget. The actual
Ne synthe during this period were $27,920,000.

c. The projected expenditure for the period January
1, 1974 to June 30, 1974 is $27,265,500.

98

6. The attached graph accurately reflects the expendi-
tures for the first half of the fiscal year and projected
expenditure for the balance of this fiscal year.

/s/ Lawrence Masterson
LAWRENCE MASTERSON

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 14th day of
February, 1974.

/s/ David Kalib
Notary Public

.

Dept. of Social Welfare - Expected Monthly Expenditure Pattern of FY 74 Gross Budget, Minus GA Hospital,

with Actual Monthly Expenditures thru December and Projected Monthly Expenditures January thru June

Millions
of ‘

ses nyo reeves onan a

6+

Projected

101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]
[Title Omitted in Printing]
AFFIDAVIT

PAUL R. PHILBROOK, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:

1. I am Commissioner of the Vermont Department of
Social Welfare and am charged by 383 VSA § 2505 with
the full responsibility for operation of the Department.

2. I, as Commissioner, have the duty to administer
laws applicable to the Department and to fix standards
and to promulgate regulations necessary to administer
those laws.

3. I am charged with the responsibility, pursuant to
33 VSA 2501(4), to comply with intent of the legislature
to maintain a reasonable standard of health and decency
based on current cost of living indexes,

4. I am further charged with the responsibility pur-
suant to 33 VSA § 2554 to allocate payments of assistance
when the appropriations are insufficient, .and am not
authorized to incur a deficit.

5. I have adjusted assistance standards during fiscal
year 1974 to reflect the increased cost of living. Be-
cause overall funding in the Department is not sufficient
to fully meet the revised standards, payments are being
made at 90% of the updated standard.

6. Based upon the information supplied to me from
the Department of Employment Security, it is my opinion
that at least one-half (14) or seven hundred and fifty

(750) of the estimated fifteen hundred (1500) families
(with two or more Wependents) that are receiving un-
employment benefits would be eligible and choose to ac-
cept an ANFC-UF welfare grant during FY 75.

_ 1. Based upon the present average grant of $327 per
month per family for ANFC-UF families, I estimate that

102

these 750 families will increase the Department’s ex-
penditures during FY 75 by $245,250 per month, or
$2,943,000 per year, of which $1,018,866 is state funds.

8. With respect to FY 74, if Department expenditures
continue as currently projected, funding would not be
sufficient to continue payments in all programs at present
levels. Before reducing assistance grants, I would seek
additional funding from the Emergency Board of state
government. If such funds were unavailable or not forth-
coming, a reduction in payments under one or more
Department programs would be necessary.

9. With respect to FY 75 (Beginning July 1, 1974),
the projected expenditure levels included in the Depart-
ment budget now being considered by the Vermont General
Assembly do not contemplate this additional caseload.
If a stay is not granted and Department FY 75 expendi-
tures proceed as currently projected, FY 75 appropriations
would not be sufficient to cover the cost of these addi-
tional 750 families. I would be obliged to request a sup-
plemental appropriation of the 1975 Vermont General
Assembly. If that request were not granted, a reduction
in payments under one or more department programs
would be necessary.

10. If a stay is granted, pending a final decision by
the U.S. Supreme Court, I shall be able to plan for an
eventual increase in budget, assuming the lower court
decision is affirmed.

/8/ Paul R. Philbrook
PAUL R. PHILBROOK

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 14th day of
February, 1974.

/8/ Dorothy E. Puente
Notary Public

103

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 15,1974] _
(Title Omitted in Printing]
STAY OF JUDGMENT

Upon the basis of the memoranda, and the arguments
of counsel on March 1, 1974, it is ordered, adjudged and
decreed that:

1. Except for the above-named plaintiffs, whose judg-
ment is to be satisfied, the judgment order with respect
to all those similarly situated individuals, who would
qualify for the ANFC-UF option, is hereby conditionally
stayed.

‘2. The stay is conditioned as follows:

(a) All those who would be eligible for ANFC-UF
benefits but for the receipt of unemployment compensa-
tion (UC) benefits, shall be permitted to apply for and
receive supplemental financial assistance from the Depart-
ment of Social Welfare (DSW) after they have been
found eligible to receive UC.

(b) The amount of the supplemental assistance shall
be the difference between the UC benefits received (or to —
be received after the mandatory one-week waiting period
prescribed in 21 V.S.A. Sec. 1848(4), together with other
earned or unearned income, and the amount the appli-
cant would be entitled to receive had he been eligible
under the ANFC-UF program.

(c) The amount of supplemental assistance shall be
calculated and paid for the month in which application
for the supplemental assistance is filed.

8. The Department reserves the option of granting
ANFC-UF tga. particular family where the family is
eligible for ANFC-UF but for the receipt of UC, and
where ‘it would be in the financial best interest of the
Department to do so. Such an arrangement can only be

104
made with the consent of the recipient and his willingness

to forego his UC benefits in favor of ANFC-UF. It

. is the intent of this order to provide the same financial
assistance to the applicant irrespective of which program
he so chooses.

4. Those individuals found eligible for benefits under
paragraph (2) above shall also be eligible for medicaid
> Sap as if they were eligible for and receiving ANFC-

ay

5. All recipients under the terms of this conditional
stay shall be afforded the right to notice, hearing and
all other procedural safeguards available to recipients
of ANFC-UF under appropriate state and federal regula-
' tions as concern the granting, modification, continuance or
termination of benefits.

6. This stay order ‘shall continue in force until the

merits are decided on appeal by the United States Su- |

preme Court.or until further order of this court.

DATED at ————— in the District of Vermont, this
15th day of March, 1974. ees

$0 ORDERED.

/s/ James L. Oakes
U.S. Circuit Judge

/s/ James §S. Holden |
US. District Judge

/s8/ Albert W. Coffrin
U.S. District Judge

fe pe

105
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES .
| No. 73-1820
PAUL R,. PHILBROOK, ETC., APPELLANT
v.
JEAN GLODGETT, ET AL,
APPEAL from the United States District Court for
the District of Vermont.
The statement of jurisdiction in this case having been
submitted and considered by the Court, probable juris-

diction is noted. The case is consolidated with No. 74-132
and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

October 29, 1974

106 |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 74-132

CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, APPELLANT

Vv.
JEAN GLODGETT, ET AL.

APPEAL from the United States District Court for
the District of Vermont.

The statement of jurisdiction in this case having been
submitted and considered by the Court, further con-
sideration of the question of jurisdiction is postponed to
a hearing of the case on the merits, The case is con-
Solidated with No. 78-1820 and a total of one hour is
allotted for oral argument.

October 29, 1974

W ov. 8. coveenment paimrine orrics; 1974 Sease2 76

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0425%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.