antiquity
12-12-2001, 08:25 PM
Caregiver Law Said Unconstitutional
By MARTHA RAFFAELE
.c The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - A law barring ex-offenders from working at nursing homes is unconstitutional because it makes no exceptions for criminals who have long since reformed, Commonwealth Court ruled.
Five plaintiffs who cannot work in facilities caring for elderly adults under an amendment to the state Older Adults Protective Services Act filed a lawsuit in August 2000, arguing that the measure was too strict. The court agreed Tuesday in a 5-2 decision.
The law was enacted in 1987 to protect the elderly from caretaker abuse and neglect. Legislators tightened hiring requirements under a 1997 amendment making jobs at health facilities for the elderly off-limits for people with certain criminal records, including drug felonies or two or more theft misdemeanors.
One of the plaintiffs, Earl Nixon, was barred from working as an assisted living home administrator because of a 1971 conviction for marijuana possession, for which he served three years' probation.
``People who have had problems with the law, but have turned their lives around, shouldn't be deprived of their right to earn a living,'' said Sharon Dietrich of Philadelphia-based Community Legal Services, which is representing the plaintiffs.
In her majority opinion, Judge Doris Smith said the plaintiffs' criminal records ``do not reflect upon their present or indeed past ability to perform their jobs.''
Judge Jim Flaherty disagreed, saying the Legislature's intention to protect the elderly was justified.
``The Legislature does not exceed its bounds merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect,'' Flaherty wrote. ``If the classification has some reasonable basis, it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification is not made with mathematic nicety.''
Sean Connolly, a spokesman for state Attorney General Mike Fisher, said the state's attorneys are reviewing the decision. They could ask the court to reconsider or they could appeal to the state Supreme Court.
``We argued in court that the General Assembly passed this law in an effort to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, the court ruled against it,'' Connolly said.
On the Net:
Court opinion: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/cwealth/out/359MD00.pdf
AP-NY-12-12-01 0941EST
By MARTHA RAFFAELE
.c The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - A law barring ex-offenders from working at nursing homes is unconstitutional because it makes no exceptions for criminals who have long since reformed, Commonwealth Court ruled.
Five plaintiffs who cannot work in facilities caring for elderly adults under an amendment to the state Older Adults Protective Services Act filed a lawsuit in August 2000, arguing that the measure was too strict. The court agreed Tuesday in a 5-2 decision.
The law was enacted in 1987 to protect the elderly from caretaker abuse and neglect. Legislators tightened hiring requirements under a 1997 amendment making jobs at health facilities for the elderly off-limits for people with certain criminal records, including drug felonies or two or more theft misdemeanors.
One of the plaintiffs, Earl Nixon, was barred from working as an assisted living home administrator because of a 1971 conviction for marijuana possession, for which he served three years' probation.
``People who have had problems with the law, but have turned their lives around, shouldn't be deprived of their right to earn a living,'' said Sharon Dietrich of Philadelphia-based Community Legal Services, which is representing the plaintiffs.
In her majority opinion, Judge Doris Smith said the plaintiffs' criminal records ``do not reflect upon their present or indeed past ability to perform their jobs.''
Judge Jim Flaherty disagreed, saying the Legislature's intention to protect the elderly was justified.
``The Legislature does not exceed its bounds merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect,'' Flaherty wrote. ``If the classification has some reasonable basis, it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification is not made with mathematic nicety.''
Sean Connolly, a spokesman for state Attorney General Mike Fisher, said the state's attorneys are reviewing the decision. They could ask the court to reconsider or they could appeal to the state Supreme Court.
``We argued in court that the General Assembly passed this law in an effort to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, the court ruled against it,'' Connolly said.
On the Net:
Court opinion: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/cwealth/out/359MD00.pdf
AP-NY-12-12-01 0941EST