Document
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Creator
Date
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
Resource Type
Material Type
Archival Collection
More Info
Rights
Rights Holder
Standardized Rights Statement
Digital Provenance
Digital Processing Note
Language
English
Format
Transcription
By Jerry Hickey
Welfare restraint
oraer
to listen to arguments by attor neys for both sides on whether the suit should be continued as a class action. According to attor ney Ron Pollack of the Center on
Social Welfare, Policy and Law in New York, who is representing the welfare recipients whose ben efits were terminated as a result
of the case audits, if the court does not consider the suit a class action, each of the recipients would have to file a suit indivi dually in federal court, and they do not have the financial re sources to do this.
Pollackclaimsthatheandthe
ended
•w ¥
a’
s
R J Staff Writer
The question of whether 3,000
welfare recipients removed from State welfare rolls are parties to a suit filed against Nevada welfare officials as a class action will be
argued in federal court Thurs day.
Attorneys for State Welfare Ad ministrator George E. Miller and the Nevada State Welfare Board, defendants in the suit, contend
that the civil action, which was filed on behalf of Mrs. Johnnie B. Woods, an indigent woman with
six children, and “all others simi
rmi
NM
VOL. 62, NO. 317
larly situated,” is not a class action.
Dep. Atty, Gen. Richard D. Weisbart, who is in charge of the defense, maintains that a court order is required to make a civil
case a class action and none has been sought by Legal Services attorneys representing the 3,000 welfare recipients whose benefits were terminated as a result of
case audits conducted by the State Welfare Division during November and December of 1970.
Tuesday, U.S. Dist. Court Judge Roger D. Foley decided he had “put the cart before the
horse” in issuing a temporary restraining order on Oct. 1 of last
year requiring that all welfare recipients be given due pro cess—including a fair hear ing-before their payments can
be reduced or terminated. The Legal Services attorneys had ac
cused Miller and the State Wel fare Board of violating the res training order because of the mass benefit terminations follow ing the case audits, and they had asked for a show cause hearing to determine why Miller and the board should not be held in con
temptofcourt.
Foley dissolved the temporary restraining order Tuesday except as it applies to Mrs. Woods, who had been notified on Sept. 10,1970 that her Aid to Families With De pendent Children (AFC) benefits’ benefits
would be terminated on Oct. 1 of last year. The jurist said a show cause order he had issued requir ing Miller and the State Welfare Board to appear at a hearing on the contempt of court charge later this month was rendered
moot by his action.
At the same time, Foley sched
uledahearingat9a.m.Thursday
Legal Services attorneys are rep resenting all of the more than 1,040 households whose benefits were terminated since Foley is
sued the temporary restraining order. In the event that the jurist decides the suit is a class action,
he conceivably will issue another temporary restraining order re quiring due process for all the recipients before termination of
benefits.
According to Pollack, all of the
1,040 households had their rights violated when their benefits were
terminated either because they did not receive notice of the
terminations in time, the notices did not explain why the benefits were to be terminated, the
recipients were not informed they were entitled to hearings prior to termination or they were not told they could call witnesses in their
fiEVIEW-JW'kVAL
ployed.
Trailblazer
10 cents
behalf. He cited other cases in
which class actions have been
allowed to support his contention
Tuesday that the suit in question 111
is a class action.
However, Weisbart argued that
many recipients requested their
names be taken off the welfare rolls because they became em
MBS mb
1
if
1
-' i
(C) Southwestern Punishing Co., Inc. 1971
NEVADA'S LARGEST AND MOST COMPLETE NEWSPAPER
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1971 PHONE 385*4241
44 Pages
WELFARE GROUP VOWS
■
I
i
About 200 welfare recipient
his s
coerc! neo
SI®
By Dale Mead R-J Staff Writer
Welfare rights advocates Tues day pledged to disrupt gambling and vice in Las Vegas after demonstrators got “insufficientn * answers to welfare demands.
the welfare office after Fallon, with a helmeted policeman stand ing on each side, answered per haps 120 mothers jammed into the lobby.
Using a bullhorn provided by that
UH SK3