|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
December 26, 2007 Fairfield County Community Foundation The Fairfield County Community Foundation (FCCF) has awarded Connecticut Legal Services, Inc. (CLS) a $30,000 competitive grant as part of its fall 2007 cycle to support its Day Laborer Wage Clinic in Stamford. Connecticut Legal Services is a private, not for profit law firm dedicated to representing, advising, and educating low income individuals and families in matters relating principally to civil law, thereby helping them secure the protection, privileges, benefits, rights, and opportunities this law provides. In May 2007, CLS launched its Day Laborer Wage Clinic which uses CLS staff and community volunteers to assist immigrant day laborers collect the wages illegally withheld from them by unscrupulous employers. In many cases, an employer will refuse to pay day laborers for days, weeks, and even months of work performed. The Clinic helps these day laborers get paid and has collected thousands of dollars on behalf of its clients since its inception. “The $30,000 grant from the FCCF will make it possible for us to hire additional staff to organize and maintain the bi-monthly clinics that provide a very important service to the day laborer community.” says CLS executive director Steven Eppler-Epstein, adding “This grant continues the valuable work that the FCCF has done to support communities and the FCCF has become a valuable partner in our efforts to enforce the employment rights of this vulnerable population.” The Fairfield County Community Foundation promotes the growth of philanthropy
to strengthen local communities and the region. Since 1992, it has
awarded over $61 million in grants, including $8.3 million awarded
last year. More than 4,700 individuals and organizations have established
charitable funds and contributed to existing funds that support education
and youth development, economic opportunity, health and human services,
arts and culture, the environment, and strengthening local nonprofit
organizations. The community foundation also provides philanthropic
advisory services and develops initiatives to address critical community
issues. It is in compliance with the Council on Foundations’ national
standards for community foundations. The Fairfield County Community
Foundation is merging with the Greater Bridgeport Area Foundation in
January 2008. Combined net assets will approach $150 million. For more
information on the FCCF, please visit www.fccfoundation.org or call
203.834.9393. September 10, 2007 Department of Social Services agrees to nearly $12 million in improvements to services to disabled persons Today Federal District Court Judge Mark Kravitz approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit that will result in almost $12 million dollars being spent to upgrade state welfare office physical facilities, computer and telephone services, increase staffing, and improve policies and procedures designed to assist low-income individuals with disabilities who seek assistance from the Department of Social Services (DSS). The lawsuit, Raymond v. Rowland, was filed in 2003 by attorneys with Connecticut Legal Services, Greater Hartford Legal Aid and New Haven Legal Assistance Association, Raymond v. Rowland, contended that DSS’ treatment of individuals with disabilities violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. DSS denied the allegations. The parties’ settlement was approved in May by the General Assembly. DSS has agreed to improve access to programs for impoverished individuals with disabilities in administration of its cash, medical and food benefit programs. During the course of the litigation DSS adopted policies to help ensure individuals with disabilities will receive accommodations needed to obtain and maintain subsistence benefits, and to enable an individual to challenge any refusals to provide accommodations when needed. DSS has also instituted staff training. It will embark on a review of its written communications to improve comprehensibility. Additional staff will be hired to ensure persons with disabilities are able to access DSS systems and programs in a timely and effective way. Shirley Bergert, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff class indicated “DSS serves many low income individuals with learning disabilities, or mental health or competency issues. They are dependent on DSS administered benefits to meet basic needs. Many need assistance to navigate eligibility processes successfully. DSS has made important improvements to protect these vulnerable individuals.” Joanne Gibau, another attorney for the plaintiffs, noted “The parties drew on the knowledge of national level experts in developing agreed upon modifications to DSS’ administration of its programs, and this proved invaluable in finding a cost-effective approach.” Lucy Potter, also representing the plaintiffs, indicated “The parties were ultimately able to find common ground resolving this important matter after significant research and negotiations. We all agree programs must be accessible to persons with disabilities and will endeavor to ensure this is the case.” Because this case is a class action, a settlement is not final until
approved by the Court. DSS sent notice of the settlement in early July
to potential class members regarding the agreement and their options,
including participation in the September 10th hearing. A copy of the
settlement agreement is available at www.ct.gov/dss/settlement. June 6, 2007 State agrees to an over $10 million increase A court settlement requiring Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) to increase services for Connecticut’s mentally ill children by an additional $10 million passed through the state legislature today. The settlement was a result of a class action lawsuit filed by Connecticut Legal Services against DCF for failing to offer community-based placements to severely mentally ill children in its care. Susan K., one of the named plaintiffs in the suit, had been in state
care for most of her life. While committed to DCF, she was placed in
more than 46 different foster homes, hospitals, shelters, and other
institutions. Like many of the plaintiffs, Susan never was given the
chance to learn how to live in the community, to attend her local school,
or to hold a job. As part of this settlement, Susan K. is receiving
assistance with rent, education, and vocational services. She is now
successfully living on her own, working part-time, and looking into
taking classes at a community college. In 2002, Connecticut Legal Services filed an action against DCF on behalf of these children. After five years of litigation and a year of intense negotiations, the parties reached an over $10 million settlement agreement to increase services over the next three years including; $3 million to improve Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services, $5 million for wrap-around services to keep mentally ill children in the community, a consultant to oversee the implementation of the settlement, individual service plans for the named plaintiffs, and the completion of 43 new community based group homes for approximately 173 mentally ill youth. On May 23, 2007, the federal district court certified the proposed class of pproximately 2000 mentally ill youth in DCF’s care in need of community-based placements in this case. CLS attorneys Anne Louise Blanchard, Bet Gailor, and Catherine Williams were appointed class counsel for the suit. "This settlement represents the Department of Children and Families' first substantial step in normalizing the living environments for mentally ill youth in DCF's care. It is critically important for youth with mental health issues to learn how to live in the community, rather than be warehoused in institutions. This settlement will facilitate DCF's ability to meet these youth's needs, reduce the amount of failed placements they experience, and most importantly, assist them in becoming successful after they leave state care" says CLS’ lead counsel in the case, Attorney Anne Louise Blanchard. June 4, 2007 U.S. District Court The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has ordered a Stamford landlord to pay over $48,000 in federal penalties and attorneys’ fees for collecting illegal rent charges from a low-income tenant receiving rental assistance under the federal Section 8 housing program. Connecticut Legal Services’ attorneys Frederic S. Brody and Richard Tenenbaum agreed to represent Shanay Coleman when she reported that her Stamford landlord, Giglia Hernandez, had required her to make illegal rent payments on six separate occasions. Coleman participates in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, a federal program that reduces homelessness by helping low-income tenants pay rent. Under the rules and regulations of the Section 8 program, a tenant pays a portion of the total rent and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development pays the remainder of the rent. The tenant’s portion of the rent is determined by federal law and HUD regulations. A landlord cannot require a tenant to pay more than his or her federally determined share of the rent. In this case, Hernandez threatened to evict Coleman unless she made an additional ent payment of $60 on six separate occasions which totaled $360 in illegal rent payments. “We often hear from low-income tenants that they feel pressured into making illegal side payments. Landlords need to know that it is not only illegal but they also can be required to reimburse the tenant much more than what they collected from the tenant, as this case demonstrates,” says Attorney Richard Tenenbaum. Connecticut Legal Services’ attorneys filed an action against Ms. Hernandez in U.S. District Court under the federal False Claims Act on behalf of Ms. Coleman. The False Claims Act prohibits any person from making a false or fraudulent claim against the United States government. Anyone who violates the False Claims Act is subject to a civil fine between $5,500 and $11,000 for each false claim plus three times the amount of damages suffered by the government. Ms. Hernandez violated the False Claims Act six times- each time she collected an illegal rent payment from Ms. Coleman. Ms. Hernandez declined to appear in court and judgment was entered against her. U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill ordered Ms. Hernandez to pay $34,080 for violating the False Claims Act, three times the amount of the $360 in illegal rent charges, or $1,080, plus a civil fine of $33,000. This sum is shared between Ms. Coleman ($10,224) and the United States ($23,856). Judge Underhill also ordered Ms. Hernandez to reimburse Ms. Coleman $360 for the illegal rent charges and pay her attorneys’ fees of $13,775. “Section 8 is a great program benefiting both landlords and tenants. Landlords are guaranteed that a portion of their rent will be paid by the federal government and tenants are assured of safe, sanitary and affordable housing,” says Attorney Frederic Brody, adding “Section 8 has rules and landlords cannot charge tenants for anything other than what the program allows. In this case, the landlord’s collection of $360 in illegal rent payments is costing her over $48,000 in penalties and fees. Landlords are not permitted to refuse to rent based on a tenant’s use of Section 8, and are required to follow the rules.” April 17, 2007 U.S. District Court The United States District Court granted a temporary injunction protecting two day laborers who state that an abusive employer threatened and harassed them when they sought to collect their wages. Connecticut Legal Services’ attorneys Megan McLeod and Jennifer Mellon along with attorney Peter Goselin of Livingston, Adler, Pulda Meiklejohn, & Kelly filed a request for a temporary restraining order in federal court on behalf of two day laborers from Stamford- Juan Campoverde and Carlos Ruiz. Campoverde and Ruiz allege that they provided a hundred hours worth of labor to their employer, Fambro Home Repair, and were then denied compensation for their work. Their affidavits state that when the owner received notice of Campoverde and Ruiz’ intent to sue for their wages, he threatened to kill one of the plaintiffs and threatened the safety of the other, starting a campaign of intimidation and harassment to prevent the day laborers from enforcing their rights under federal and state law. "The refusal to pay day laborers and other low-wage workers is in danger of becoming just another cost-saving measure for too many employers in Connecticut. When this kind of exploitation is coupled with threats and intimidation it undermines the rights of all working people. We need to get the word out that failure to pay wages is illegal and that employers who resort to it can and will be challenged" stated attorney Goselin. According to papers filed with the court, Campoverde and Ruiz were employed by Fambro Home Repair throughout 2006 with the understanding that the workers would be paid $15 and $12 an hour, respectively, for their work. The employer also required Campoverde to make a $600 “insurance payment” as a condition of that employment. Campoverde and Ruiz were never paid for their work and the $600 was neither reimbursed to Campoverde nor used to secure insurance. When Campoverde and Ruiz sought legal assistance to secure payment of their wages, the workers claim that the owner of Fambro Home Repair began to make threatening phone calls and left threatening messages. Ruiz claims that the owner of Fambro Home Repair pushed his way into Ruiz’ house threatening to kill Ruiz if he continued to enforce his right to be paid for work performed. Under federal and state law, all workers must be compensated for their work. If workers enforce their rights to be paid, an employer cannot intimidate, abuse, or harass a worker with threats of retaliation. Based on this, Attorneys McLeod, Mellon and Goselin asked the United States District Court to enter a temporary restraining order which would prevent the owner of Fambro Home Repair from harming or having any direct or indirect contact with Campoverde, Ruiz or their families. The court issued the order temporarily protecting the workers and their families from any further harm. “Day laborers in our community have been the target of rampant exploitation. It is important that this exploitation not go unchallenged. In this case, where the defendant threatened the personal safety of the workers, the granting of the temporary restraining order was especially crucial” stated Attorney McLeod upon hearing the decision of the court to grant the injunction. On May 2, 2007, the court will have a hearing to decide if the order should remain in full force and effect permanently. March 14, 2007 Appellate Court rules today: The Connecticut Appellate Court decided today that a victim of domestic violence is not required to tell her abuser of her location when she flees her abusive home. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court which ruled that by fleeing and remaining in hiding, the woman had lost her right to present claims in the divorce action filed by her husband. Connecticut Legal Services’ attorneys Michael Burns and Claudine Siegel brought the question before the Appellate Court on behalf of a 73-year old immigrant woman, Stefania Tsitaridis, who testified that her husband physically and emotionally abused her. The appellate court decided that the woman, who fled her abusive marital home and did not disclose her location to her husband, did not lose her right to open the divorce judgment within four months of the proceeding, as allowed by State law. Stefania, who speaks almost no English, feared for her safety and sought refuge at the local domestic violence shelter. She was then transferred to a different shelter elsewhere in the state. The husband, not knowing Stefania’s whereabouts, received the court’s permission to publish the divorce notice in the local newspaper in lieu of the usually required in-person service of the papers. Stefania did not become aware of the divorce proceedings until after the divorce was granted, providing her no alimony or marital property. She could not obtain any alimony or share of the marital property unless the judgment is opened. Under Connecticut State Law, a judgment of divorce can be opened within four months if there is reasonable cause to explain why a person was prevented from attending and presenting her case. Connecticut Legal Services’ attorney Michael Burns asked the court to open the judgment so Stefania could present evidence regarding the marriage, and to obtain financial orders. After describing the abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband before deciding to flee the home, Stefania also testified that her only source of income, social security, was terminated because it was based on her husband’s income, for which she became ineligible when the divorce was granted. Burns argued that Stefania’s reasons for withholding her location from her abusive husband, along with her loss of opportunity to obtain any of the marital assets, met the legal standard for opening the divorce judgment. The trial court disagreed, maintaining that it would not open the case because the husband had met the legal requirements by publishing the divorce notice and because Stefania had voluntarily kept her location a secret. Attorneys Burns and Siegel appealed this decision to the Appellate Court arguing that victims of domestic violence should not have to report their locations to their abusers after fleeing violent homes. The Appellate Court today agreed and reversed the trial court’s decision stating that just looking at whether the husband had provided notice by publishing it in the newspaper is not enough and the court should have also looked to state law to decide whether it should set aside the judgment. The Appellate court stated that “the [trial] court failed both to make factual findings and to analyze whether the defendant presented sufficient evidence to establish reasonable cause and whether she was prevented from prosecuting the action because of mistake, accident or other reasonable cause.” The trial court will now be required to review its decision. “This case is very important to protect the safety and valid financial claims of victims of domestic violence,” says Siegel, director of the CLS Family Task Force. “They should not have to forfeit their right to challenge legal proceedings brought against them while they keep their locations secret. They deserve to have their day in court.”
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
