Opinion
No. 78-561
Decided November 24, 1978. Rehearing denied December 21, 1979. Certiorari denied March 12, 1979.
District court upheld Department of Social Services denial of certain public assistance benefits to plaintiff, and plaintiff appealed.
Reversed
1. SOCIAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC WELFARE — State Regulation — Denies — Public Assistance Benefits — Father — Full-Time Student — Not Comply — Federal Regulation — Invalid. Since federal regulation permits the state to deny certain public assistance benefits to an unemployed father only if the conditions of his unemployment are such as would disqualify him from unemployment compensation, and since the status of being a full-time student, standing alone, does not disqualify one from such compensation, state regulation that denied those public assistance benefits to any father "whose main activity is attending school" is a regulation that does not meet the requirements of the federal regulation and is thus invalid.
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Clifton A. Flowers, Judge.
William E. Benjamin, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, David W. Robbins, Deputy Attorney General, Edward G. Donovan, Special Assistant Attorney General, Frederick Y. Yu, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court which upheld the Colorado Department of Social Services' denial of certain public assistance benefits to George Molinari. We reverse.
In March of 1976, Molinari was seventeen years of age, married, an expectant parent, and attending high school classes full-time. On March 12, 1976, he filed an application with the Adams County Department of Social Services for Aid to Families with Dependent Children — Unemployed Father (AFDC-U). The application was denied based upon a regulation of the state department which prohibits assistance to full-time students. The denial was appealed to the state department and it affirmed the action of Adams County.
The AFDC-U program is a recent addition to the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (1970). The purpose of this program is to provide assistance through "cooperative federalism" for a dependent child who requires financial support because the child's father is unemployed. See Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 97 S.Ct. 2399, 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977). The parties agree that Colorado's benefits plan must include a definition of an unemployed father which meets the requirements of 45 C.F.R. § 233.100. 45 C.F.R. § 233.100(a)(1) (1977) defines an unemployed father to include any father who:
"(i) Is employed less than 100 hours a month; or (ii) Exceeds that standard for a particular month . . . ; except that, at the option of the State, such definition need not include a father whose unemployment results from participation in a labor dispute or who is unemployed by reason of conduct or circumstances which result or would result in disqualification for unemployment compensation under the State's unemployment compensation law." (emphasis added)
Based upon 45 C.F.R. § 233.100(a)(1) (1977), the state department adopted the following regulation:
"4231.31 Conditions concerning employment. The following are requirements regarding unemployment of the father which must be met concerning application for AFDC-U: . . . With the exception of persons receiving training under an approved plan by a government agency, such as WIN or CETA, fathers whose main activity is attending school are not a part of the labor force and do not meet the definition of 'unemployed.' "
Preliminarily, we note that, contrary to the state department's contention, Molinari did not stipulate before the agency hearing officer that he was not a part of the labor force because he was a full-time student. The stipulation referred to merely confirms that Adams County denied his application on the basis that, as a full-time student, he was not a part of the labor force under regulation 4231.31.
Molinari maintains that regulation 4231.31 violates the federal guidelines enumerated in 45 C.F.R. § 233.100(a)(1) (1977), and that, therefore, denial of his application was improper. We agree.
[1] Regulation 4231.31 is in conflict with Colorado law governing unemployment compensation for students, and it therefore fails to satisfy the federal guidelines in 45 C.F.R. § 233.100(a)(1) (1977). While full-time school attendance may, under some circumstances, result in a denial of unemployment compensation benefits, see Industrial Commission v. Bennett, 166 Colo. 101, 441 P.2d 648 (1968), that status standing alone does not automatically make one ineligible for unemployment benefits. Industrial Commission v. Redmond, 183 Colo. 14, 514 P.2d 623 (1973); Couchman v. Industrial Commission, 33 Colo. App. 116, 515 P.2d 636 (1973). Regulation 4231.31 should be amended to conform to the requirements of the cases cited above.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with directions to enter judgment setting aside the denial of Molinari's application for benefits and remanding the cause to the Department for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
JUDGE PIERCE and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.