4 Welfare Recipients Sue County Over Punishment

Four welfare recipients who broke San Diego County’s rules for receiving basic aid sued the county Thursday, claiming the punishment was too harsh for their offenses.

The suit, which was filed in San Diego Superior Court and seeks to add as plaintiffs all indigent people who receive the county aid, claims the county violates the federal and state constitutions when it bars the poor for as many as six months for flouting the regulations.

The plaintiffs are seeking back benefits and a change in county regulations.

No other state counties with large cities impose such lengthy penalties, said Rosemary Bishop, an attorney for the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, which filed the suit.

“We think the length of the sanctions is pretty shocking, and we think the court will be shocked, too,” Bishop said.

The suit will test the due process clause of the federal and state constitutions, an area of law often cited in suits but, in a way, rarely seen in modern cases, Bishop said.

The lawsuit centers on the county’s general relief program, which the suit describes as the “program of ‘last resort’ for people who have no other means of support.” Under the program, required by state law, county residents who cannot qualify for any other form of aid can get $291 a month plus food stamps.

In March, the last month for which figures were available, 4,739 people received those benefits, according to the suit.

Those who are not disabled are required to work 72 hours a month at $3.35 an hour on county projects to help repay their relief grant, the suit says. During off hours, recipients must search for and accept any other job that pays minimum wage, it says.

Violations of the work rules result in fixed periods of ineligibility for the aid, from 60 days to six months, the suit says. Making up missed work or otherwise trying to comply with the rules does not change the sanction, it says.

Three of the four people who filed the suit added sworn statements saying they were penalized for three months.

Typical of the three was Barbara Mascorro, 25, who said she lost her eligibility because she failed to provide an adequate medical excuse for missing work.

The fourth plaintiff, Veronica McNeil, 30, said she was ineligible for benefits for 60 days because she had been fired in the private sector.