## Facts

- The federal Welfare Reform Act of 1996 replaced AFDC with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program and tied federal funding to state implementation of stricter eligibility and participation requirements.
- In 1997, Colorado enacted the Colorado Works Program Act (CWPA), administered by the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) through county departments of social services.
- Under the CWPA, eligible participants receive cash assistance (subject to available appropriations) if they comply with program requirements, including obligations set out in an Individual Responsibility Contract (IRC).
- Counties may impose a “sanction” for noncompliance, generally by reducing the participant’s cash assistance.
- CDHS regulations required that, before imposing a sanction, the county provide written notice describing the sanction, explaining the basis for the decision, and giving accurate information about review and appeal procedures and other required details.
- Frances F. Weston and other Adams County TANF recipients brought a certified class action against Donald M. Cassata (the county social services director, in his official capacity) and the Adams County Board of Social Services.
- The plaintiffs alleged that Adams County’s sanction notices were incomplete or inaccurate and did not reliably explain the county’s decision or the process and deadlines to challenge a sanction.
- Examples included notices that failed to state the sanction amount, failed to describe the sanction’s effects, and provided an incorrect time frame for disputing the sanction.
- The trial court heard evidence that, when recipients did dispute sanctions, the county often reinstated benefits, yet it continued using the same notice forms and practices.
- The trial court ruled that the notices were legally inadequate under governing regulations and that the county’s practices violated due process; it entered judgment for the plaintiff class with declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The county appealed, arguing that TANF recipients had no protected property interest in benefits and that, in any event, the notices gave sufficient reasons for the sanctions.

## Issues

1. Do Colorado Works/TANF recipients have a constitutionally protected property interest in continued benefits (subject to eligibility and available appropriations) such that due process applies before benefits are reduced by sanction?
2. Did Adams County’s sanction notices satisfy due process and applicable CDHS notice requirements when they omitted or misstated key information (such as the sanction amount, effect, and challenge deadline)?
3. Was classwide declaratory and injunctive relief proper where the county used standardized notice forms and practices affecting recipients countywide?

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff class.
- The court rejected the county’s argument that recipients lacked a protected property interest in TANF benefits; eligible recipients had an entitlement to benefits while funds were available and program requirements were met.
- The court agreed that Adams County’s notices were inadequate because they did not reliably provide the information required by regulation and due process, including clear and accurate information about the sanction and the procedures and deadlines to contest it.
- The court upheld the trial court’s classwide relief directed at the county’s notice practices.

## Legal Principles

- Public assistance benefits can be a protected property interest when the governing statutes and rules create an entitlement for eligible recipients, even if payment is conditioned on factors such as available appropriations.
- When the government reduces subsistence benefits by sanction, due process requires notice that is timely and sufficiently specific to allow the recipient to understand the action, the reasons for it, and how to challenge it.
- Notice is deficient if it omits key terms of the action (such as the amount and effect of a benefit reduction) or gives misleading or incorrect information about review and appeal rights and deadlines.
- An agency must follow its own duly adopted rules that require particular notice content before taking adverse action against beneficiaries.
- Where a county uses standardized forms and recurring practices that affect recipients as a group, classwide declaratory and injunctive relief may be used to correct the unlawful notices and prevent continued violations.

## Conclusion

Weston v. Cassata holds that Colorado Works/TANF recipients have a protected property interest in continued benefits while eligible and while funds are available, and that Adams County violated due process and CDHS notice rules by issuing sanction notices that were incomplete or inaccurate about the sanction and the means and time to contest it; the Court of Appeals therefore affirmed judgment and classwide relief for the recipients.


Weston v. Cassata, 37 P.3d 469 (2001)