## Facts

- The New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD) administered the state General Assistance (GA) program, providing cash assistance to several categories of eligible individuals, including disabled adults ineligible for SSI and dependent children.
- HSD adopted a regulation (FAP 419) limiting GA benefits for disabled adults to a maximum of twelve months.
- The regulation did not impose a comparable durational limit on other GA recipient categories, including dependent children.
- Disabled adult recipients (and similarly situated individuals) sued, alleging the regulation discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and invalidated FAP 419; HSD appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether prior state-law precedent recognizing HSD’s authority to impose GA time limits foreclosed an ADA challenge to FAP 419.
2. Whether plaintiffs were “qualified individuals with a disability” under Title II.
3. Whether HSD was a “public entity” subject to Title II.
4. Whether FAP 419’s twelve-month limitation applicable only to disabled adults unlawfully discriminated “by reason of” disability under Title II.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held that prior state-law decisions about HSD’s authority did not resolve compliance with later-enacted federal ADA requirements.
- The court held there was no genuine dispute that plaintiffs were “qualified individuals with disabilities” for GA purposes.
- The court held HSD, as a state agency, was a “public entity” covered by Title II.
- The court held FAP 419 violated Title II because it singled out disabled adults for a uniquely adverse eligibility limit and therefore denied benefits “by reason of” disability.

## Legal Principles

- State courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate Title II ADA claims; the ADA does not reserve such claims exclusively to federal courts.
- Title II applies to state departments and agencies administering public benefits as “public entities.”
- Individuals who meet a public program’s essential eligibility requirements and have qualifying disabilities are protected “qualified individuals with a disability.”
- Title II’s anti-discrimination rule reaches benefit eligibility criteria and program rules that screen out or disproportionately restrict individuals with disabilities.
- A public benefits rule that expressly imposes a durational cap on disabled recipients, while not imposing the same cap on other eligible recipient categories, constitutes discrimination prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated HSD’s regulation capping General Assistance benefits for disabled adults at twelve months, holding that Title II of the ADA prohibits a state agency from denying or limiting benefits through eligibility rules that treat disabled recipients less favorably by reason of disability.


Weaver v. N.M. Hum. Servs. Dep’t, 123 N.M. 705, 945 P.2d 70 (N.M. 1997)