Holmes et al v. Knodell

Filing 161

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 137 motion for summary judgment; and denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 139 motion for summary judgment. Signed on 5/9/24 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (View, Pat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARY HOLMES, DENISE DAVIS,
ANDREW DALLAS, and EMPOWER
MISSOURI,

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:22-CV-04026

-againstROBERT KNODELL, in his official capacity
as Acting Director of the Missouri Department
of Social Services,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 137 and 139). On
January 29, 2024, counsel presented oral argument on the pending motions. The parties agree that
this case should be decided on the briefing. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to
administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) in compliance with the
provisions of federal law and the on demand waiver requirements. Plaintiffs allege Defendant has
failed to provide timely, accurate, and fair service to applicants for, and participants in, the SNAP
program as required by federal law. See 7 U.S.C. § 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(2)(B)(i) (“a State
agency…shall provide timely, accurate, and fair service to applicants for, and participants in, the
supplemental nutrition assistance program”). Plaintiffs also argue Defendant has violated the
requirements of the ADA in its administration of SNAP. The Court has reviewed the record before
it, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court rules in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant.

1

As more fully detailed throughout this Order, the evidence is undisputed that the telephone
system utilized by DSS to handle SNAP applications is overwhelmed. The evidence reflects
unacceptable wait times and thousands of calls that cannot be completed. For example, in July
2023 the average time a caller waited in the queue before speaking with a representative was over
fifty minutes, and much longer wait times have been experienced. There are between 200 and 300
Call Center staff that work on different tasks, including Tier 1 and Tier 3 calls, appointments,
online chat, and texts. In the first few months of 2023, DSS, on its own evaluation, found that
approximately 400 staff totally dedicated to the Call Center, with no other duties apart from
handling Tier 3 calls, would be required to meet the private call center industry standard which is
to answer 80% of calls within 2 minutes.
Thirty two percent of all calls that made it to the Tier 3 queue, which handles SNAP
interviews and applications, were abandoned by the caller before being connected to a Call Center
employee. In July 2023, 64,053 calls were deflected from the Tier 3 queue. While the Call Center
was open until 6:00 p.m. from January 2023 to June 2023 the Call Center routinely started
deflecting calls by 2:00 p.m. In 2023, almost 60,0000 applications (initial and recertification) have
been denied for failure to complete an interview. In addition, fifty percent of applications were
denied for failure to complete the interview in one month during 2023. These denials were not
based on the merits of the applications but the failure of the system to offer a reasonable
opportunity to interview.
BACKGROUND
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
In 1964 Congress established the federally funded, but state administered, food stamp
program to raise levels of nutrition among low-income households. Effective October 1, 2008, the

2

federal food stamp program was renamed SNAP. The federal government provides complete
funding to states for all SNAP benefits and pays at least 50% of the state’s costs to administer the
program. Under federal law, to be eligible for SNAP benefits, a household’s net income must be
below the federal poverty line.
Under SNAP, the administering agency is required to: provide benefits to eligible
applicants within 30 days of the submission of the household’s application; provide benefits to
certain recipients with very low income within 7 days of the submission of an application; permit
households to file an application on the first day they contact the local office during office hours;
encourage households to file an application the same day the household or its representative
contacts the administering agency in person or by telephone and expresses interest in obtaining
benefits or expresses concerns indicating food insecurity; and make application forms readily
accessible.
Paper applications must be made readily accessible and available even where the
administering agency accepts applications through other means. The system must include a means
for applicants to immediately file an application that includes only the name, address, and signature
of the applicant. The administering agency is prohibited from denying or interfering with a
household’s right to apply for benefits in writing. Applications must be accessible to persons with
disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Finally, the administering agency must mail an application form to a
household on the same day a telephone request is received and inform households of their rights
and responsibilities in the program.
Under USDA regulations, Defendant must either interview the applicant on the day of
application, or, if this is not possible, schedule an interview promptly to ensure an opportunity to

3

participate within 30 days after the application is filed. If an applicant household misses a
scheduled interview the administering agency must notify the household that the household is
responsible for rescheduling the interview. If the household contacts the administering agency
within the 30 day period following submission of the application the administering agency must
reschedule the interview. To receive SNAP benefits, an individual must submit an initial
application and complete an interview. To maintain SNAP benefits, individuals are required to
recertify their SNAP eligibility on a regular basis which requires them to navigate the DSS’s Call
Center and be interviewed again.
Department of Social Services
Missouri’s Department of Social Services (DSS) is the single state agency responsible for
administering SNAP in Missouri. Robert Knodell is the Department Director of DSS. The Family
Support Division (“FSD”) of DSS assesses the eligibility of SNAP applicants and disburses
benefits to eligible households. Within FSD, there are three types of offices that assist with the
administration of SNAP benefits: Processing Centers, Resource Centers, and Customer Service
Centers. Employees in Processing Centers process SNAP applications to determine eligibility.
Resource Center employees primarily assist individuals who visit the Center with verifications,
answer questions, provide additional resources, and register applications. Employees in the
Customer Service Centers answer the DSS Call Center phones, respond to questions, complete
interviews, process cases, and inform callers of possible resources. All three offices are staffed
with Benefit Program Technicians (BPTs) and Customer Information Specialists (CISs) who have
the same training and are able to perform the same tasks.

4

On-Demand Waiver
DSS obtained a waiver from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and
Nutrition Service (“FNS”) which allows DSS to use an interview procedure which deviates from
the process laid out in FNS regulations. Pursuant to the waiver, DSS is not required to schedule
the SNAP interview at a specific date and time. Instead DSS must provide applicant households
with a notice, known as an interview letter, instructing them to contact the Call Center within 5
days of submitting their application. Also pursuant to the waiver, applicants who do not complete
their interview within 5 days are sent a notice of missed interview instructing applicants that they
must complete their interview within 30 days of submitting their application or their application
will be denied.
Pursuant to the waiver, eligibility interviews may be conducted in person or by telephone.
Face-to-face interviews must be made available to any household that requests one. At the time of
the application the administering agency must notify the household of the verification
requirements they must meet and inform the household of the agency’s duty to assist the household
in obtaining required verification. The administering agency must provide a clear written statement
of what a household must complete to obtain verification and complete an application.
Pursuant to Missouri’s waiver, “[a]pplicants are able to have a face-to-face interview at the
time of application or upon request for any reason.” Applicants who request a face-to-face
interview must have an appointment scheduled within five days. Also pursuant to Missouri’s
waiver, DSS has implemented predictive dialing for the Call Centers, which requires an attempted
contact with applicants on the first day for all applications and continued attempts to call for four
days if necessary.

5

DSS policy stipulates that applicants can access SNAP applications online, by mail, in
person at a Resource Center, or at DSS community partner locations. Resource Centers are
expected to make applications available in their lobby. FNS does not permit DSS to accept a SNAP
application over the phone, but individuals can request that the Call Center mail them an
application. However, there is no automated option in the Interactive Voice Response (“IVR”)
system to request that an application be sent.
Once an application is registered, DSS sends a notice to the applicant letting them know
they have to complete an interview. DSS’s eligibility system automatically denies applications if
an interview has not been completed within 30 days, regardless of whether applicants attempted
to secure an interview, or whether DSS meaningfully made an interview available. For example,
in July 2023, over fifty percent of all denials were due to the failure to complete a timely interview
and were not decided on the merits of the application.
Call Centers
There are ten Customer Service Centers (CSCs). The Call Center hours are currently 6:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. CSC staff interact with applicants and recipients by
phone, text, and internet chat. The number of staff at each CSC ranges from around twelve to fortyfive. The phone system used in the Call Center is called Genesys. This system allows DSS to
change something in the Genesys system very quickly as opposed to their old Cisco system. In
Cisco, there were a limited number of lines available to callers and any new calls would be
deflected if there were too many. Genesys, as a cloud-based system, has no limitations to the
number of lines that can be used.
There are two Tiers within the Call Center: Tier 1 and Tier 3. Tier 1 calls are routed to staff
regarding general DSS information. Tier 3 calls are routed to staff to complete a SNAP interview.

6

Tier 3 calls are further broken down into two components: “inbound” interview calls and
“outbound” interview calls. When a caller dials the SNAP interview line, they are asked to enter
their case number or SSN with their date of birth. The system will check whether an interview is
needed on their case, and if so, the caller will be transferred to Tier 3. If the system does not report
that an interview is needed, the caller will be transferred to Tier 1.
Shortly after the switch to Genesys, DSS limited the number of calls in each queue. To
determine whether the queue is too full, Genesys performs a calculation each time a call comes in.
Genesys first looks to see how many callers are in the queue. If there are fewer than the
predetermined number of callers programmed in by DSS, the system moves the call into the
requested queue. If there are more than the predetermined number of callers already in the queue,
Genesys performs an additional calculation. Genesys evaluates the estimated wait time for a call
and adds an additional “padding” to that wait time. If the wait time plus padded time is later than
when the Call Center closes for the day, Genesys plays a recorded message and then terminates
the call. As of May 10, 2023, the calculation for a call to the Tier 3 queue was the estimated wait
time calculation plus two hours.
In early 2023, the Call Center changed the messaging a caller would hear when the queue
was full. Before this change, the caller would be told that the Call Center was “unable to take your
call, please try your call back again later.” Now the message gives the caller a list of options. These
options include live chat, visiting the website, going to the local Resource Center, or reporting
changes and looking at benefits online. As a result of this change in messaging, the Call Center no
longer labels calls that are turned away as “deflected,” but rather as “redirected” calls. Like
deflected calls, redirected calls are unable to reach a Call Center worker to complete an interview.

7

Predictive Dialer
Applications are registered in DSS’s case management system, FAMIS. Applications that
require an interview are flagged in FAMIS and then the application is added to the predictive dialer
list. The following day, the predictive dialer makes a call out to the phone number associated with
the application. Applications that are identified as eligible for expedited processing receive one
call a day for two days (or until the interview is completed) from the predictive dialer. All other
applications receive only one call. The number of calls the dialer makes at one time depends on
the number of staff who are logged in to handle Tier 3 outbound calls.
When Genesys went live in June 2021, the predictive dialer was programmed to make five
calls per staff member logged in to handle Tier 3 outbound calls. Because the Call Center was not
able to handle this volume of calls, DSS changed this by programming the predictive dialer to
make one call per staff member logged in to handle Tier 3 outbound calls. Staff who are logged in
to the predictive dialer line are also logged in to the Tier 3 inbound line. The Tier 3 outbound line
has priority over the Tier 3 inbound line and are prioritized over Tier 3 inbound calls. The daily
load of predictive dialer calls generally ranges from 1,300 to 2,500. In late May and early June
2023, the predictive dialer load was consistently “well above 2,500,” and reached 4,500 on June
14, 2023. If a caller picks up the predictive dialer call, the caller is placed in the predictive dialer
IVR menu.
The IVR menu provides the option to: press 1 if the person who answered is the applicant
and has twenty to thirty minutes to complete the call; press 2 if the person who answered does not
have time to complete the call; press 3 if the applicant has already completed an interview; press
4 if the person who answered is not the person who applied and cannot get the applicant on the
phone in the next three minutes; or, press 5 if the person who answered is not the person who

8

applied, but can get the applicant in the next three minutes. If the person who answers presses 5
but is unable to get the customer in the three minutes given, the call disconnects. If the person who
answers presses 2, the application is never placed in the predictive dialer list again. If the person
who answers presses 1, they are routed into the Tier 3 outbound queue. If all workers are on other
calls when the caller enters the Tier 3 outbound queue, the caller is put on hold.
Appointment Scheduler
SNAP applicants have the option to schedule an appointment to be seen in person at a
Resource Center or to receive a phone call from a DSS employee at a specific date and time.
Applicants can schedule appointments by using DSS’s appointment scheduler or by walking into
a Resource Center and scheduling an appointment with a representative. However, same day
appointments are not readily available for Resource Centers. DSS implemented a new appointment
scheduler in March 2023. The appointment scheduler is available through the Call Center, but
there is no menu option in the IVR for a caller to schedule an appointment. The option to schedule
an appointment is only offered once the caller makes it into a queue. Because a caller is not offered
the option to schedule an appointment until they are placed in the queue, the appointment scheduler
is not offered to deflected callers.
Applicants can also access the automated appointment scheduler through DSSChat on
DSS’s website. It features a chatbot and when applicants begin a chat, they are offered the option
to “make appointment” and can choose to schedule an in-person appointment or a phone
appointment. Applicants can indicate to DSSChat when they want their appointment. If that time
is not available, DSSChat returns the next three possible options for appointments. There are
fifteen phone appointment slots available per hour for the entire state. The number of appointments
at a Resource Center depends on the hours and staffing of each Resource Center.

9

Appointment slots are not exclusively reserved for SNAP interviews. For example, they
are available for any conversation or meeting between a member of the public and a benefit
program technician or a customer information specialist. Appointments are offered on a first-come,
first-serve basis. The appointment scheduler does not account for any upcoming deadlines on the
caller’s case when assigning an appointment. There is no option for a caller to indicate any
deadlines.
Resource Centers
Resource Centers closed in March 2020 in response to COVID-19. Since February 2021,
the Resource Centers have been in the process of reopening. The typical hours of operation for a
Resource Center are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
on Wednesdays. There were 123 Resource Centers across the state. Each county has at least one
Resource Center. However, twenty-one of these Resource Centers are not fully reopened. Nineteen
Resource Centers only have one staff member. Another sixty Resource Centers only have two staff
members. Resource Centers with few or one staff may have to close when the staff member is sick
or on vacation. The Resource Centers’ locations and hours are listed on DSS’s website. The
website is the only place where customers can check the current Resource Center hours before
going to a Resource Center. The website often contains inaccurate information regarding which
locations are open or what the hours of operation are at each location. DSS admits it struggles to
sufficiently staff some Resource Centers. For example, the record reflects one Resource Center
that has a line out the door and over a two-hour wait because it does not have sufficient staffing
and/or hours.

10

Defendant’s ADA Policies
DSS qualifies as a public entity under the ADA. The Office for Civil Rights Director for
the Department of Social Services serves as the designated ADA coordinator. Anna Wise is the
Office for Civil Rights Director for DSS. Ms. Wise testified that she spends less than ten percent
of her time on ADA-related matters for SNAP participants.
DSS’s only policy regarding ADA accommodations for SNAP participants is contained in
their Non-Discrimination Policy Statement. DSS does not mail or otherwise directly disseminate
the Non-Discrimination Policy Statement to SNAP participants. The Department’s NonDiscrimination Policy Statement is posted in Resource Centers and on DSS’s website. The NonDiscrimination Policy Statement does not reference disability status and does not indicate that
reasonable accommodations are required by federal law. The Non-Discrimination Policy
Statement dictates that in order to receive an “auxiliary aid or service for effective communication,
or a modification of policies or procedures to participate in a program, service, or activity of the
Department of Social Services,” an individual should notify the Department as soon as possible,
and no later than forty-eight hours before a scheduled event by contacting either their DSS local
office or the Office for Civil Rights Director for DSS.
However, Resource Centers do not have their own phone numbers and the NonDiscrimination Policy Statement does not provide instruction as to how an individual who requires
a reasonable accommodation should request one. Further, a SNAP interview is not treated as a
“scheduled event.”
The Office for Civil Rights is the sole decider on outcomes of complaints submitted by
SNAP applicants or recipients related to disability-based discrimination or refusal to grant
reasonable accommodations. DSS has no written standards or criteria for granting, denying, or

11

otherwise resolving requests for reasonable accommodation made by SNAP applicants or
participants. The Office for Civil Rights does not follow up to monitor how the reasonable
accommodation request was handled, or whether it was implemented in any way. If DSS denies
the request for a reasonable accommodation, there is no written policy, standard, or mechanism
for the individual to appeal that denial within DSS. The Department does not stay or toll SNAP
deadlines regarding compliance with eligibility requirements while a reasonable accommodation
request is being processed. There is no policy allowing a granted reasonable accommodation to
continue the next time the SNAP applicant or recipient interacts with the agency. There is no policy
for the timeline to make a decision on a reasonable accommodation request. There is no written
policy on who has the authority to grant or deny reasonable accommodation requests.
All DSS employees receive an internal civil rights and diversity training upon hire, and
frontline staff receive subsequent internal civil rights and diversity training every three years. The
DSS training includes only three slides, out of 129 total, that discuss participant ADA
accommodations. The DSS training states that if staff receive an accommodation request, they
should: document the request in the case file; notify their chain of command; and approve the
request if they are able to meet the needs of the client at the local office and the request does not
create an undue hardship. The training does not discuss how to respond to a request for
accommodation where a client’s needs must be met over the phone. The training does not inform
staff how to recognize or acknowledge an accommodation request. The training instructs DSS staff
to work through their chain of command and contact the ADA coordinator before they deny any
requests. DSS does not evaluate or test staff knowledge retained from attending the agency’s civil
rights and diversity training.

12

In addition to the DSS training, staff and supervisors also attend a yearly online SNAP
training related to civil rights, created by USDA. The USDA training has one slide out of twenty
three that discusses the ADA. BPTs and CISs receive no other training regarding the ADA or
reasonable accommodations. The USDA SNAP civil rights training states that upon request for an
accommodation, staff should: document the request in FAMIS, notify their chain of command,
approve the request if they are able to meet the needs of the client at the local office and the request
does not create undue hardship on the operation of the agency, and, before staff deny a request or
if staff are unsure about a denial, they should work through their chain of command and contact
the ADA Coordinator/Office of Civil Rights Manager. During twelve weeks of additional program
training, Call Center staff receive no specific training on procedures for processing or resolving
reasonable accommodation requests from SNAP applicants or participants.
BPTs and CISs receive no training on how to identify when a SNAP participant or applicant
with a disability might need a reasonable accommodation, or whether to affirmatively offer
assistance. If staff encounter a person with a disability who requires additional explanation for
SNAP interview questions, they are expected to handle it the best they can. The Department does
not keep a log of, or otherwise track or monitor, reasonable accommodation requests made by
participants. The DSS Office for Civil Rights Director also does not keep a log of reasonable
accommodation requests that are sent to her for review.
In its SNAP notices sent to households, DSS does not include information on how to
request a reasonable accommodation authorized by the ADA or file an ADA-related complaint
with DSS’s Office of Civil Rights.
The USDA’s language states that: “In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies,

13

offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are
prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, disability,
age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or
activity conducted or funded by the USA.”
SNAP notices contain nothing to inform an applicant or participant on how to file a
complaint concerning disability-based discrimination with DSS. The only instruction directs an
applicant or participant to complete the USDA program complaint form. At no point in the Call
Center’s IVR system, on either Tier 1 or Tier 3, can SNAP applicants or other callers with
disabilities request an accommodation. SNAP applicants and participants must either wait on hold
in one of the Call Center queues or call the Office of Civil Rights directly.
Plaintiff Mary Holmes
Ms. Holmes suffers from throat cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She
does not have internet access nor does she have any reliable means of transportation. In January
2022, Holmes attempted to call DSS’s Call Center to request an application to recertify her SNAP
benefits. She called three times during the first week of January but was unable to complete any
of the calls.
On January 10, 2022, Ms. Holmes paid a family member to take her to a Resource Center.
After a 20-minute wait she spoke to an employee and submitted her application. She asked to be
interviewed in person and was told the resource staff was not doing interviews and that she would
receive a call from DSS within the next few days. DSS registered Ms. Holmes’ application on
January 11, 2022. On January 12, 2022, Ms. Holmes answered a call from DSS but was never
connected to a representative. On January 13, 2022, Ms. Holmes contacted the Call Center and
was asked a series of automated questions. After answering the questions, she entered the queue

14

and was told there were 472 people in front of her. She waited for 2 hours but was never connected
to a representative. Ms. Holmes called again and stayed in the queue for 6 minutes and 12 seconds
before disconnecting. She tried to call again several more times and each time she was unable to
enter the queue because her call was deflected due to the volume of calls exceeding capacity.
On January 14, 2022, Ms. Holmes called again and answered the automated questions. She
was told there were 692 people in front of her in the queue. She waited for an hour and thirty seven
minutes but was never connected to a representative. Ms. Holmes called again on January 27,
2022, and was deflected. She called again on January 28, 2022, and stayed in the queue for fourteen
minutes and twelve seconds before disconnecting.
During the first week of February 2022, Ms. Holmes received a notice from DSS indicating
she needed to complete her interview and that DSS would attempt to reach her. She was informed
that she should call DSS if she missed the call. Ms. Holmes was further advised her application
would be denied if she did not complete the interview. Ms. Holmes did not receive any calls from
DSS after receiving the notice.
Ms. Holmes tried to call multiple times in February 2022 to complete her interview. During
her two attempts on February 4th the calls were deflected. During the week of February 7, 2022,
Ms. Holmes received notice that her SNAP application was denied for failure to complete the
interview. Prior to filing her lawsuit Ms. Holmes had not been approved for benefits from the date
of her application on January 10, 2022 through March 20, 2023. Ms. Holmes will have to reapply
for benefits and complete an interview to maintain her benefits.
Plaintiff Andrew Dallas
Mr. Dallas has epilepsy which causes him to suffer frequent seizures. Mr. Dallas’s seizures
can result from stress, a poor diet, skipping meals, and not getting enough sleep. He averages one

15

seizure per week but suffers them more frequently when stressed. As a result of his seizures Mr.
Dallas often feels confused suffering a “brain fog” which has worsened over time. His only income
is supplemental security income, and he has been approved by Medicaid for home health services.
Mr. Dallas is not able to drive due to his epilepsy. Mr. Dallas finds SNAP recertification paperwork
complicated and confusing.
On December 23, 2021, DSS received a document from Mr. Dallas entitled “Food Stamp
Change Report.” In the report Mr. Dallas wrote: “I have epilepsy + cannot understand like normal
people do. Please help! I am not sure I understand all of the letter. I am disabled.” On the report
Mr. Dallas also wrote: “ I am an Epileptic. I hope I got everything right”.
In January 2023, DSS mailed Mr. Dallas recertification paperwork. The notice stated that
if he did not complete the paperwork by February 28, 2023 his benefits would end. Mr. Dallas was
not offered any assistance with his recertification application despite his request for an
accommodation. Between February 8-10, 2023, Mr. Dallas called DSS’s information line
approximately ten times. At least three times he was not able to make it past the main menu’s
language prompts. On occasion Mr. Dallas made it past the main menu but was put on hold and
told there were 234 callers ahead of him. He discontinued the calls. Mr. Dallas was not able to
complete his recertification until after he joined this lawsuit. After joining the lawsuit, he was
approved for SNAP benefits. Under the current DSS policies Mr. Dallas will be required to make
another reasonable accommodation request every time he needs assistance with paperwork and
every time his recertification becomes due.
Plaintiff Denise Davis
Denise Davis first applied for benefits on November 12, 2022 when she submitted her
application online. She never received any follow-up communication from DSS about her

16

application. When Ms. Davis contacted the Call Center she was informed there was no application
registered under her Social Security number and that she should reapply. On December 29, 2022,
Ms. Davis submitted a second online application. She was subsequently hospitalized with acute
kidney failure for two weeks and did not have access to her phone. After being released from the
hospital she contacted the Call Center multiple times each week to complete her interview.
On January 4, 2023, Ms. Davis called the Call Center twice and both times her calls were
deflected. On January 10, 2023, Ms. Davis again called the interview line and was deflected. She
later called and made it into the queue but then the call was disconnected. On January 12, 2023,
Ms. Davis called the SNAP interview line and waited in the queue for 1 hour and 52 minutes before
disconnecting. She called back again multiple times that day and was deflected each time. Ms.
Davis also attempted to call the general information line and was deflected. At one point, she called
the interview line and was able to connect but was unable to speak directly to anyone.
On January 13, 2023, Ms. Davis called the general information line and the interview line
and was deflected both times. Each time Ms. Davis called and was able to enter the queue there
were hundreds of people ahead of her. On more than one occasion there were more than 700 people
in the queue and Ms. Davis often waited between 2 and 3 hours. After waiting 2 or 3 hours, and
until fewer than 100 people were ahead of her in the queue, she heard a recording that DSS was
receiving too many calls and that she should call back later. At that point, her call was terminated
by the Call Center system.
In early January 2023, Ms. Davis received a DSS letter stating she needed to complete an
interview to process her application. Shortly afterwards she received another notice stating that if
she did not complete an interview by January 30, 2023 her application would be denied. Despite

17

multiple attempts to the Call Center Ms. Davis was not able to complete her interview and her
application was denied.
Ms. Davis submitted a third application on January 30, 2023. On February 1, 2023 she
received a call from DSS and was informed that she was in a queue behind seventeen other people.
When Ms. Davis was finally connected to a DSS worker they requested her case number. Ms.
Davis did not know her case number but did provide her Social Security number. The DSS worker
accepted the information but then hung up on her. The call records for this interaction show that
Ms. Davis did connect to a worker and that the total interaction time was five minutes and fifty
two seconds. Ms. Davis immediately called back but heard a recording that 300 people were
waiting ahead of her in the queue. She called again and waited for an hour and fifty eight minutes
before disconnecting. She then called again and waited for six minutes and thirty seconds before
disconnecting. Ms. Davis received another call from DSS on February 2, 2023, but it went to her
voicemail. She called back and waited in the queue for almost two hours before disconnecting.
On February 3, 2023, Ms. Davis received a call but it went to voicemail. She called back
twice but disconnected shortly after getting into the queue. Ms. Davis called her local DSS office
to set up an appointment for an in-person interview. She was automatically transferred to the Call
Center and was put on hold again. Ms. Davis also attempted to use the DSS chat feature twice to
complete her interview. Each time the chat directed her to the Call Center.
Despite multiple attempts to the Call Center and a visit to the Resource Center, Ms. Davis
had not been able to complete her interview. Ms. Davis attempted to be interviewed by the Call
Center approximately fifteen times after submitting her third application. She was never able to
connect to a DSS worker to complete the interview. Ms. Davis received a letter from DSS dated
February 1, 2023, stating that she needed to complete an interview for her application to be

18

processed. A few days later, she received a notice dated February 7, 2023, stating that if she did
not complete an interview by March 1, 2023, her application would be denied. Only after joining
this lawsuit did Ms. Davis receive an interview and then was approved for benefits.
Plaintiff Empower Missouri
Empower Missouri is a not for profit organization organized under Missouri law that works
to ensure that all people of Missouri have access to adequate nutrition, quality health care, decent
housing, and an appropriate education. Empower Missouri devotes significant time, energy, and
resources to issues arising from DSS’s administration of SNAP. Empower Missouri is a founding
member of the SNAP Advisory Group. Starting in January 2022, the Advisory Group held monthly
calls with the Family Support Division of DSS regarding SNAP-specific issues. The SNAP
Advisory Group dedicates a portion of its meetings to reviewing DSS Call Center data regarding
the extensive wait time and deflection issues.
Empower Missouri also convenes the Food Security Coalition (FSC), a group of antihunger advocates and providers in Missouri. Empower Missouri provides resources and
information to anti-hunger advocates and communicates with DSS regarding agency failures in
Missouri’s administration of SNAP. Because of the numerous issues with DSS’s administration of
SNAP, Empower Missouri staff divert considerable time and effort organizing and managing the
FSC which is comprised primarily of direct service providers including food banks and antihomeless organizations.
Empower Missouri’s Food Security Coalition budget for fiscal year 2023 was $161,020.64.
Empower Missouri has spent $96,000 for fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023 relating to issues
arising from DSS’s administration of SNAP. Empower Missouri’s Food Security Policy Manager
has diverted roughly twenty percent of her time because of issues arising from DSS’s

19

administration of SNAP. Both Empower Missouri’s Executive Director and Policy Director have
diverted roughly ten percent of their time because of issues arising from DSS’s administration of
SNAP. Empower Missouri has diverted staff time from proactive policy reform efforts regarding
school meals, WIC, and seniors’ access to SNAP to respond to issues created by DSS’s
administration of SNAP.
Additional Evidence
Missouri citizens who were not named plaintiffs have also encountered problems with the
DSS system and the failed Call Centers have prevented other SNAP applicants from completing
their interviews. Patricia Matousek attempted to complete her interview in the beginning of 2022.
Between the end of December 2021 and May 2022, Ms. Matousek called DSS at least once a week,
in total between ten and twenty times. Most of her calls were deflected. Every time she made it
past the IVR prompts and into the interview queue, there were hundreds of people ahead of her in
the queue. Ms. Matousek submitted three applications for SNAP and was denied each time for
failure to interview.
Elizabeth Dodd attempted to complete her interview in November and December 2021.
She called numerous times and routinely was on hold for hours and multiple times after waiting
on hold for hours her call was disconnected. In January 2022, Shelby Wall tried to call the Call
Center over ten times and was never able to connect to someone for an interview. Victoria
Dempsey, the Program Director of the Youth and Family Advocacy Program at Legal Services of
Eastern Missouri, called the interview line on behalf of her client at various times of day over the
course of multiple days in April 2023. When she was able to get into the queue, there were always
at least fifty callers ahead of her. Otherwise, she was directed to go to a Resource Center and the
call was disconnected.

20

Daniel Underwood, the Managing Attorney of the Youth and Family Advocacy Program
at Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, called the interview line on behalf of his clients on August
17, 2023. He was told he was 150th in the queue and waited for ninety minutes before the Call
Center disconnected him. He called again that afternoon but was deflected. On August 18, 2023,
he called again and was told he was 225th in the queue. He waited for about thirty to forty minutes
before he disconnected.
Patriona Spates, the Intrada Coordinator at Epworth Children & Family Services,
accompanied a client to the Resource Center to assist them in completing an interview. The staff
at the Resource Center told Ms. Spates and her client that they were unable to do an interview
because of staffing problems.
James Shelton was diagnosed with Type I diabetes in 1994. In 2011, he was diagnosed
with diabetic retinopathy, and as a result, his vision is very limited. In the past, Mr. Shelton has
had trouble with SNAP paperwork due to his visual impairment. He has taken documents to the
Kirksville Family Support Division Resource Center to have staff read the documents to him. Mr.
Shelton uses a screen reader on his phone and has asked the Family Support Division many times
to send notices to him electronically. He has visited his local Resource Center many times over
the past four years. Every time, he has asked them to send SNAP notices in a digital format to
accommodate his vision disability. On June 20, 2023, Mr. Shelton went to the Kirksville Resource
Center because his SNAP benefits had been terminated. He was told that he had not returned his
SNAP mid-certification review form. Mr. Shelton told a Resource Center supervisor that DSS is
required to send him SNAP notices in a format he can read. The supervisor responded that FSD
does not have to do this.

21

L.V. had to submit a recertification for SNAP in January 2022. L.V. could not go to a
Resource Center to complete her interview because her diabetes, trouble breathing, COVID-19
related heart trouble, extreme fatigue, and migraines, made it too difficult to leave her home. L.V.
had no choice but to rely on DSS’s Call Center. Despite multiple attempts to complete her
interview through the Call Center in early 2022, L.V. was not able to speak to an individual to
complete her interview. Her application was denied for failure to complete the interview.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action asserting Defendant violated rights protected
by the SNAP Act, the Due Process Clause, and the ADA. Simultaneously, Plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking a TRO barring Defendant from depriving them of the SNAP benefits to which they were
entitled. At the TRO motion hearing, the Court suggested the parties create a process through
which Plaintiffs’ counsel could alert Defendant’s counsel about a SNAP applicant who had
difficulty in scheduling an interview and find a resolution together, without having to seek
emergency relief from the court.1
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper where there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact,
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The plain
language” of the Rule “mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). “By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel has notified Defendant of just over three dozen individuals who had difficulty
in scheduling an interview and Defendant promptly scheduled interviews for these applicants.
22

factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986) (emphasis in original). A genuine issue of
material fact only exists if a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the non-moving party.
Id. at 248. “On a motion for summary judgment, ‘facts must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.’” Ricci v. DeStefano,
557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs claim that Defendant, in his official capacity, has violated, and continues to
violate, their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the federal SNAP laws. 2
Plaintiffs also claim that Defendant has failed to meet clear obligations under the ADA. 3
To begin, and as stated by the Plaintiffs, “the importance of food cannot be overstated.
Neither can the consequences of hunger. Courts have long recognized that food deprivation creates
a ‘brutal need’ with significant, lasting physical and emotional effects.” Citing, Goldberg v. Kelly,
397 U.S. 254, 260–65 (1970). With this in mind, the federally funded, state administered SNAP
program provides food assistance benefits to low-income individuals, allowing them to obtain food
while using their resources for other needs.
DSS is required by federal law to provide SNAP benefits to all eligible Missourians who
depend on DSS to assist them. Federal law requires Defendant to provide timely, accurate, and fair
service to applicants for, and participants in, the SNAP program. However, as reflected in the facts
presented in this case the Missouri system is broken and inaccessible. The changes, modifications,

2

“Section 1983 provides a civil action against persons who, under color of law, cause a ‘deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’ ” Hannon v. Sanner, 441 F.3d 635, 636–37 (8th
Cir.2006) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
3
The ADA provides its own cause of action. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134.

23

and adjustments made by DSS after increasing its reliance on its telephone system to process
SNAP applications have proven unsuccessful in fulfilling Defendant’s responsibility to provide
timely, accurate, and fair service for applicants and participants in the program. While call wait
times fluctuate and have shown some improvement, the record demonstrates too little progress.
Consequently, Missourians who suffer food insecurity have been forced to either go hungry or
seek alternative sources of food when their applications are denied.
Further, efforts by DSS have not made sufficient progress in adding needed manpower.
The hours of operation and staffing of offices have not been expanded to accommodate the needs
of eligible applicants. The denial of benefits to eligible households based on the inability to
complete timely interviews remains unacceptably high. Too many applicants are rejected based on
the failure of the system, rather than substantive evaluation of the applications. The Court is aware
that the State of Missouri must operate under a balanced budget and that there are multiple
demands for the State’s resources. Here, however, since the federal government pays 100% of
benefits and at least 50% of administrative cost for the program it is a challenge to believe that
State resources are inadequate to address the problems with the Defendant’s administration of the
program. This is especially so since the Court is mindful that the State has received financial
assistance from the federal government attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic.

More

importantly, state officials have found it appropriate to enact tax cuts reducing available state
revenues during the period the SNAP program has been inadequately administered.
SNAP Requires Defendant to Provide Benefits to All Eligible Applicants
Courts commonly order heads of SNAP administering agencies to comply with the
requirements of SNAP. See, e.g., Robertson v. Jackson, 972 F.2d 529, 533 (4th Cir. 1992)
(commissioner of agency administering Food Stamps was “fully responsible” for ensuring

24

compliance with federal requirements); and Southside Welfare Rights Org. v. Stangler, 156 F.R.D.
187 (W.D. Mo. 1993) (enjoining head of Missouri DSS to comply with “program access”
requirements). Wrongful denials of SNAP benefits are one such violation.
In Barry v. Lyon the Sixth Circuit upheld a district court ruling that Michigan violated the
SNAP Act by imposing an additional eligibility requirement beyond what the legislation required.
834 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2016). Michigan used an automated system to determine whether applicants
appeared on a list of people with warrants for felony charges, with no further checks. Denials were
automatic, and otherwise-eligible people were wrongfully denied.
Similarly, here, Defendant’s reliance on an inadequate automated system and understaffed
offices to provide interviews also violates Defendant’s obligation under SNAP and Defendant’s
on-demand waiver. Defendant’s automatic denials of eligible applicants based on an automated
system constitutes a wrongful denial of benefits. Defendant is required to provide benefits to all
eligible applicants and must ensure that it has a system that allows for this to happen. Here, an
alarming number of eligible applicants are denied based on Defendant’s failure to make timely
interviews available. When applicants who are otherwise eligible for benefits are denied those
benefits for failure to interview, due to no fault of their own, Defendant has violated its obligations
under the law.
For example, Defendant does not dispute that Holmes was eligible for SNAP when she
applied in January 2022. The records establishes that she made diligent efforts to be interviewed,
including requesting an in-person interview and making numerous calls. However, her application
was denied because she was unable to complete the interview. Davis also applied for SNAP
multiple times and Defendant does not dispute that Davis was eligible. She made numerous efforts

25

to be interviewed, but despite all those efforts (as fully described herein) her applications were
denied because she was unable to complete the interview.
These Plaintiffs met, and continue to meet, the eligibility criteria for SNAP but Defendant
rejected their applications because DSS made it impossible for them to be interviewed through the
Call Center and offered them no alternative means to have the interview in a timely manner. The
Court finds Defendant was required to provide Plaintiffs, who were eligible under SNAP, with
SNAP benefits but failed to do so. As clearly set forth herein, there are systemic, ongoing problems
with the application, interview, and approval process. As a result, Plaintiffs, and other citizens, are
further at risk of losing SNAP benefits each and every time they have to use Defendant’s system
to recertify their benefits.
In addition to the interview, Defendant also has an obligation to ensure that all applicants
are able to file applications. Plaintiff Holmes was unable to file a SNAP application on the first
day she contacted the agency due to limited IVR prompts and Call Center issues. In fact, it was
after multiple days of contacting DSS that Holmes ultimately had to visit a Resource Center to
obtain an application for submission. The inability to access the Call Center operations delayed
Holmes’ application for SNAP. Further, and even more importantly, it required her to find a means
of transportation that she did not have and that was costly to her on a low income. Plaintiffs’
experiences, and those of others, who confronted the problems with the telephone system is not
surprising given the lengthy wait times and number of calls which were deflected or redirected by
the system previously described in this Order.
Standing
First, to establish standing, Plaintiffs must establish that they have suffered an injury in
fact, that the injury is fairly traceable to Defendant’s actions, and that it is likely to be redressed

26

by a favorable court decision. See Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 919 (D.C.
Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). Defendant
argues Empower Missouri cannot establish an injury in fact. An injury in fact is an invasion of a
legally protected interest that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs, 528 U.S. 167, 180
(2000).
An organization may establish organizational standing on its own behalf when there is a
“concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities—with the consequent drain on
the organization’s resources...” Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982). To
establish organizational standing, Empower Missouri can show direct injury by a diversion of
organizational resources to identify or counteract the allegedly unlawful action. Id. Diversion of
resources can occur when an organization has to use resources that could have been spent on other
activities, but instead must divert those resources to address a violation. Id.; see also Nat’l Fed. Of
Blind of Mo. v. Cross, 184 F.3d 973, 979 (8th Cir. 1999).
The record establishes that Defendant’s failure to provide timely, accurate, and fair service
to SNAP applicants has caused Empower Missouri to divert significant financial and staffing
resources to work that is directly related to Defendant’s failed implementation of SNAP. For
example, Empower Missouri must continually divert resources from their organizational mission
in response to Defendant’s wrongful denials of SNAP applications, including spending $96,000
over three years responding to Defendant’s administration of SNAP. Defendant’s failure to allow
all applicants to submit an application on the first day they contact the agency also impacts
Empower Missouri, which must continually divert resources from its organizational mission to

27

address Defendant’s failures and assist in these applications. As a result, the Court finds Empower
has organizational standing.
In addition, the Court finds Article III standing because all Plaintiffs have established an
injury “that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578
at 338. In suits against the government where “the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or
forgone action) at issue. . . there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused
him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561–62 (1992). A threat of continuing legal violations may
be redressed by injunctive relief. Elizabeth M. v. Montenez, 458 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 2006).
Here, the individual Plaintiffs are at substantial risk of losing SNAP benefits, and as stated
Empower Missouri has been forced to divert resources, because of Defendant’s specific unlawful
policies and practices. Defendant continues to engage in these policies and practices, causing
ongoing or recurring harm to Plaintiffs, including their requirement to apply for recertification and
re-interview to continue to receive benefits that they are eligible for. Therefore, a court order
declaring these practices unlawful and requiring Defendant to change them would redress
Plaintiffs’ injury. The Court finds Plaintiffs have Article III Standing.
Defendant also argues Plaintiffs’ claims are moot to the extent they received benefits and
were granted interviews. However, a “defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice
does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice unless it is
absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”
See Mo. Prot. & Advoc. Servs. v. Carnahan, 499 F.3d 803, 811 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal citations
omitted) (“a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal
court of its power to determine the legality of the practice unless it is absolutely clear that the

28

allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”). The Defendant ‘“bears
the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could
not reasonably be expected to recur.”’ Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (“a
defendant cannot automatically moot a case simply by ending its unlawful conduct once sued.
Otherwise, a defendant could engage in unlawful conduct, stop when sued to have the case
declared moot, then pick up where he left off, repeating this cycle until he achieves all his unlawful
ends.”) (internal citation omitted).
Here, Defendant granted Plaintiffs their interviews after the lawsuit was filed and in turn,
the individual Plaintiffs received their benefits. However, this one-time interview does not address
the continued problems with Defendant’s system, nor the challenges Plaintiffs will face when they
must recertify their benefits. Defendant’s system continues to automatically deny all applications
when an interview has not been completed within 30 days and the record reflects the number of
denials due to a missing an interview is around 50%. For all these reasons, and the reasons set
forth throughout this Order, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ claims are not moot simply because they
were granted an interview after this litigation was filed.
Due Process Rights
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant’s wrongful denials of SNAP applications
also violate the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs have a protected property interest in the SNAP
benefits to which they are entitled. Defendant’s policy and practice of wrongfully denying SNAP
applications for failure to interview deprives them of access to a critical benefit to which they are
otherwise eligible. This is even more true when the denial for failure to interview is caused by
Defendant’s failed system.

29

The Supreme Court has long held that public benefits recipients, including SNAP
recipients, have a property interest in their benefits. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. at 261-63
(public benefits recipients have a property interest in benefits to which they are entitled under
statute); and Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128 (1985) (food stamp benefits are a matter of
statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and are appropriately treated as a form
of property protected by Due Process). Every circuit court to consider the question, including the
Eighth, has found applicants for public benefits hold this property interest. See Daniels v.
Woodbury Cnty., Iowa, 742 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1984); Kapps v. Wing, 404 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir.
2005); Hamby v. Neel, 368 F.3d 549, 559 (6th Cir. 2004); Mallette v. Arlington Cnty. Emps.’ Supp.
Ret. Sys. II, 91 F.3d 630, 535 (4th Cir. 1996); Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F.2d 118, 121–22 (9th Cir.
1979).
Once the court determines that due process applies, the next question is what process is
due. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972). The court in considering what procedures
due process may require in a given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the
precise nature of the government function involved and also the private interest that has been
affected by governmental action. See Id. (“it is a recognition that not all situations calling for
procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure”); see also Goldberg, 397 U.S. 254; and
Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (1961).
Courts have applied one of two tests in analyzing this question. In Mathews v. Eldridge the
Court applied a balancing test, which considers: (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of
erroneous deprivation and the value of additional or changed procedures; and (3) the government’s
interest. 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). In addition, “due process requires that [benefits] be
administered to ensure fairness and freedom from arbitrary decision-making as to eligibility,” and

30

that benefit programs be administered in a manner that “ensure[s] the fair and consistent
application of eligibility requirements.” See White v. Roughton, 530 F.2d 750, 753–54 (7th Cir.
1976) (federally subsidized public assistance is governed by statute and extensive regulations); see
also Carey v. Quern, 588 F.2d 230, 232 (7th Cir. 1978) (program must “ensure fairness and avoid
the risk of arbitrary decision making”); K.W. ex rel. D.W. v. Armstrong, 1:12-cv-00022-BLWCWD, 2023 WL 5431801 (D. Idaho Aug. 23, 2023) (“absence of any ascertainable standard for
inclusion and exclusion is precisely what offends the Due Process Clause”) (citing Smith v.
Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 578 (1974)); M.A. v. Norwood, 133 F. Supp. 3d 1093, 1098 (N.D. Ill. 2015);
Strouchler v. Shah, 891 F.Supp. 2d 504, 515–516 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Baker-Chaput v. Cammett,
406 F. Supp. 1134, 1130–40 (D. N.H. 1976); Torres v. Butz, 397 F. Supp. 1015 (N.D. Ill. 1975).
Here, Plaintiffs have a property interest in SNAP benefits and the Court finds under either
test, Defendant’s wrongful denial of SNAP applications deprives Plaintiffs of procedural due
process. First, Defendant’s denial of Plaintiffs’ SNAP applications violates procedural due process
under the Mathews test. Plaintiffs’ private interest is high as Defendant has deprived them of
subsistence benefits. To be deprived of SNAP is to be deprived of food, and courts have recognized
a high interest in SNAP and similar benefits. See, e.g., Daniels, 742 F.2d at 1133.
Further, the Eighth Circuit has held that arbitrary decision-making in a subsistence benefits
program constitutes a due process violation because of the high risk of erroneous deprivation.
Daniels, 742 F.2d at 1133; see also Bliek v. Palmer, 102 F.3d 1472,1476 (8th Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs
are indisputably eligible for SNAP benefits but their applications were denied without a
meaningful, realistic opportunity to interview, and without having systems capable of keeping their
applications alive to accommodate delays in obtaining an interview. Here, applicants are being
denied benefits not based on the merits of their application but on the failure to obtain an interview.

31

Further, the failure to interview is a direct result of Defendant’s inability to provide an efficient
and successful system that allows applicants to schedule and complete an interview within the
required time frame.
Further, these unacceptable statistics regarding wait times, failures to interview, and
obstacles in the process to obtaining SNAP benefits are not merely inconveniences to the Plaintiffs
but constitute actual barriers to Plaintiffs receiving benefits they are entitled to under SNAP. There
has been no dispute that Plaintiffs were entitled to SNAP benefits, and after filing this lawsuit,
actually received their benefits. When Plaintiffs are required to recertify their SNAP eligibility
they will again face these obstacles, as will other Missourians in similar situations.
Here, the federal government has issued standards for uniformly and objectively
determining SNAP eligibility. Defendant rejected Plaintiffs’ applications for failure to complete
an interview within 30 days. When the Defendant denies all SNAP applications for which an
interview has not been completed on the 30th day, regardless of attempts by the applicant to be
interviewed, this amounts to arbitrary agency action.
Americans With Disabilities Act
Congress enacted the ADA to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for
the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” and to provide “clear,
strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination” against those individuals. 42
U.S.C.A. § 12101. The ADA specifically protects against discrimination against individuals with
disabilities that persists in such critical areas as access to public services. Id. Title II of the ADA
provides an essential anti-discrimination mandate: “no qualified individual with a disability 4 shall,

4

A “qualified individual with a disability” is a person with a disability who “with or without reasonable modifications
to rules, policies, or practices, . . . meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the
participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. “The

32

by reason of such disability5, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such
entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In implementing Title II, the U.S. Department of Justice emphasized
that the failure to provide reasonable accommodations constitutes discrimination on the basis of
disability:
A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures
when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,
unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.
28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).6 “In a reasonable accommodation case, the ‘discrimination’ is framed
in terms of the failure to fulfill an affirmative duty—the failure to reasonably accommodate the
disabled individual’s limitations.” Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761, 767 (8th Cir. 2004).
To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA Plaintiffs must demonstrate: 1) they are
qualified individuals with disabilities; 2) they were excluded from participation in or denied the
benefits of a public entity's services, programs, or activities; and 3) that this exclusion or denial
was by reason of their disabilities. Layton v. Elder, 143 F.3d 469, 472 (8th Cir. 1998).
As the Eighth Circuit has established:
We have long held the ADA requires meaningful access to the public entity’s services and
that mere limited participation does not satisfy this requirement. To meet the meaningful
access standard, public entities . . . “are not required to produce the identical result or level
of achievement for handicapped and nonhandicapped persons, but must afford
handicapped persons equal opportunity to . . . gain the same benefit.”

statute’s use of the term ‘qualified’ suggests that we must look not to the administration of the program for which the
plaintiff is qualified, but rather its formal legal eligibility requirements.” Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261,
277 (2d Cir. 2003).
5
The ADA defines “disability” as: “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an
impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
6
Reasonable “modifications” and “accommodations” are treated interchangeably by the courts. McElwee v. County
of Orange, 700 F.3d 635, 640 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012).

33

Segal v. Metro. Council, 29 F.4th 399, 404 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Loye v. Cnty. of Dakota, 625
F.3d 494, 496 (8th Cir. 2010).
The ADA further requires public entities to “take affirmative actions to provide qualified
disabled individuals with access to public services.” Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. City of
Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901, 910 (6th Cir. 2004). Defendant must provide necessary reasonable
accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities and when an individual submits a request
for a reasonable accommodation, Defendant must be able to provide “a prompt and equitable
resolution.” See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).
The ADA also requires Defendant to notify applicants and participants about their rights,
and to create an effective grievance system by which qualified individuals with disabilities can
submit complaints regarding ADA-prohibited discrimination. 28 C.F.R. § 35.106 and § 35.107.
Plaintiffs Dallas and Holmes are qualified individuals with disabilities and their disabilities
were known to Defendant. DSS denied Plaintiff Dallas meaningful access to SNAP by failing to
accommodate his disability. Plaintiff Dallas submitted a written request for accommodation on his
SNAP Change Report requesting assistance with his SNAP paperwork. However, Dallas was not
provided an accommodation. Defendant does not track accommodation requests in its system.
Defendant does not have a policy that offers Plaintiff assistance with future SNAP documents,
including recertification. Defendant’s failure to accommodate Plaintiff resulted in denial of
meaningful access to SNAP recertification and violates the ADA. Further, because Plaintiff will
continue to rely on SNAP, he will suffer harm every time he must interact with DSS to recertify
and maintain his benefits.
DSS also deprived Plaintiff Holmes of meaningful access to SNAP because of her disabling
condition. In January 2022, Plaintiff Holmes was forced to visit a local Resource Center to submit

34

a SNAP application, after the Call Center made it impossible to request an application form over
the phone. While at the Resource Center Plaintiff requested a same-day interview but was denied.
Plaintiff Holmes was unable to visit the Resource Center a second time and unable to reach DSS
via their phone system. As a result, Defendant denied her SNAP application. Because Defendant
made no accommodation for Plaintiff Holmes, she was unable to obtain SNAP benefits for which
she was eligible, until after she filed this lawsuit.
Defendant’s failure to inform Plaintiffs of their rights and to provide a system by which
Plaintiffs could seek an accommodation results in denial of meaningful access to SNAP. This in
turn led to the denial of benefits. Again, Plaintiffs will face these same obstacles each time they
must recertify their SNAP eligibility. The record also reflects that Defendant does not provide
workers with appropriate training on an accommodation process. For all these reasons,
Defendant’s policies and practices, or lack thereof under the ADA, are unlawful and fail to meet
its responsibilities under the ADA.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
In considering whether to issue injunctive relief, the Court weighs: (1) Plaintiffs’ likelihood
of irreparable harm; (2) the balance between harm to the Plaintiffs and the injury that the
injunction’s issuance would inflict upon Defendants; and (3) the public interest. See Oglala Sioux
Tribe v. C&W Enterprises, Inc., 542 F.3d 224, 229 (8th Cir. 2008) (factors considered for
permanent injunction are the same as preliminary injunction, except that a permanent injunction
requires actual success on the merits, not likely success). No single factor is dispositive of the
request for an injunction, as the Court considers all of the factors and decides whether, on balance,
they weigh towards granting the injunction. Dataphase Sys. Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109,
113 (8th Cir. 1981).

35

Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Defendant from denying SNAP applications for eligible
individuals who have not been given a meaningful opportunity to complete their interviews; ensure
that all SNAP applicants have a meaningful opportunity to complete an interview; and ensure that
all Missouri residents are provided with an opportunity to apply for SNAP on the first day that
they contact DSS.
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enjoin Defendant to provide reasonable accommodations to
Plaintiffs to enable them to access and maintain their eligibility for SNAP; notify SNAP applicants
and recipients about the nondiscrimination requirements of Title II of the ADA, including the
process by which they can seek a reasonable accommodation; and ensure the process for applicants
and recipients to request an accommodation of their disabilities permits meaningful access to
SNAP.
Here, the Court has found that Plaintiffs are eligible, low-income individuals who rely on
SNAP for food. Further, they have disabilities or health conditions that make it difficult for them
to work. Every day Plaintiffs go without SNAP there is a deprivation of nutrition, and along with
that comes psychological and physical distress. In addition, Plaintiffs will be required to recertify
their SNAP eligibility and complete other required paperwork. Plaintiff Empower Missouri also is
irreparably harmed by Defendant’s continuing violations for the reasons discussed herein.
The Court finds for the reasons set out in this Order that the balance of harms weighs in
favor of granting the relief requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek an injunction ordering Defendant
to enact policies and procedures in compliance with the SNAP Act, the Due Process Clause, and
the ADA. Further, granting injunctive relief to Plaintiffs is in the public interest. An injunction that
requires Defendant to operate SNAP in compliance with the SNAP Act, the Due Process Clause,
and the ADA certainly promotes the public interest.

36

DECISION
The evidence is overwhelming that the current administrative process utilized by
Defendant fails to meet its obligations imposed by the SNAP program. The system does not timely,
accurately, and fairly service applicant households. The high percentage of denials based on failure
to interview is a direct consequence of the failed administration of Defendant’s SNAP program.
These denials are not based on the applicant’s eligibility but on the inadequacies of Defendant’s
process. Eligible households have limited resources and incomes below the federal poverty line
and many face daily challenges with transportation, telephone minute limitations, and access to
the internet. Some applicants face literacy challenges and have limited educations. Effective
participation in the SNAP program requires applicants to receive the access and assistance federal
program guidelines provide. Here, Defendant is not meeting those requirements.
The insufficiency of Defendant’s administration of the program first became most obvious
and undeniable while the State faced COVID-19 issues resulting in the closure of several offices
and the resulting increase in reliance on the telephone system. However, even after COVID-19 the
system’s failures persist. The system, as currently administered, is clearly insufficient for the
timely submission of applications and completion of required interviews by eligible applicants.
Missourians suffering from food insecurity go hungry and/or are forced to seek alternative sources
of food as a direct result of the system’s inadequacy. Defendant is simply failing to meet the
obligations established for administration of the program.
The changes, modifications, and adjustments made by DSS after increasing its reliance on
its telephone system to process SNAP applications have, based on the record presented to this
Court, proven unsuccessful in fulfilling Defendant’s responsibility to provide timely, accurate, and
fair service for applicants and participants in the program. While call wait times fluctuate and have

37

shown some improvement, the record demonstrates too little progress. Consequently, Missourians
who suffer food insecurity have been forced to either go hungry or seek alternative sources of food.
Efforts by DSS have not made progress in adding needed manpower. The hours of operation of
the telephone system and in person offices have not been expanded to accommodate the needs of
eligible applicants. The denial of benefits to eligible households based on the inability to complete
timely interviews remains unacceptably high.
The Court is mindful that correcting the problems in the system, which have persisted for
several years, cannot be solved easily or immediately. Further, the Court is reluctant to engage in
micromanagement of Defendant’s administration of the program or to dictate any state resource
allocation. However, the Court is charged with requiring Defendant to adhere to the requirements
of SNAP and the ADA, including Defendant’s obligation under the SNAP program and federal
law.
Based on the Court’s finding that Defendant’s administration of SNAP does not fulfill its
obligations under federal law and violates its responsibilities under the ADA the Court hereby
orders as follows:
1. Within thirty days of this order, Plaintiffs shall submit to this Court a report detailing the
specific changes they contend are required to make Defendant’s provision of SNAP
benefits lawful and ADA compliant. Each proposed change must be separately and clearly
identified. Defendants are required to respond to Plaintiffs’ report within thirty days.
Defendant shall identify 1) the resources, including time necessary, to effectuate each
proposed change; 2) the barriers that currently stand in the way of Defendant effectuating
the change; and 3) the metrics that would most effectively capture any effort on the part of

38

Defendant to effectuate the change. Plaintiffs shall have fifteen days to reply to
Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s report.
2. Defendant is ordered to file monthly reports (“the monthly report”) with this Court
indicating: 1) the number of SNAP applications denied due to the failure to conduct timely
interviews; 2) the percentage of denials based on the failure to complete timely interviews;
3) the low, high, and average wait times for callers under Tier 1 and Tier 3; 4) the number
of calls which were deflected or redirected daily; 5) the number of calls that are
disconnected by the caller prior to connecting with a representative, including the average
wait times prior to disconnection; and 6) the number of applicants who requested
accommodations under the ADA. These monthly reports must include any changes in
definitions and data collection methods that would prevent meaningful comparison of data
points from month to month.
3. A copy of each monthly report should be provided to the Missouri Governor’s Office, the
Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, the minority leader of the Missouri
House of Representatives, the President Pro Tem of the Missouri Senate, the minority
leader of the Missouri Senate, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, the ranking
minority member of the Senate Budget Committee, the chairman of the House Budget
Committee, the ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee, the chairman
of the House Social Service Appropriations Committee, and the ranking minority member
of the House Social Service Appropriations Committee. Reports shall be filed on or before
the 15th of each month detailing the required information from the previous calendar
month. The first report shall be due on June 15th and shall continue until further order of
the Court.

39

4. Within 90 days of this Order Defendant shall submit to the Court a proposed plan of action,
including a timeline of implementation, to address shortcomings in the administration of
SNAP as identified in this Order, including a reduction of call wait times and denials based
solely on failure to interview, and its compliance with the requirements of the ADA.
Plaintiff shall have fifteen days following Defendant’s submission to submit comments.
5. After the parties have complied with this Order, the Court will determine what, if any,
further actions, orders, remedies, or proceedings are appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 9, 2024
s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

40