Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MN Provider Complaint -- FILED

MN Provider Complaint -- FILED

Ratings: (0)|Views: 823 |Likes:
Published by FreedomFoundationMN
United State District Court complaint filed by MN child care providers.
United State District Court complaint filed by MN child care providers.

More info:

Published by: FreedomFoundationMN on May 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
)
JENNIFER PARRISH, DANA AKRE,ADDIE CLYDE, CYNTHIACUNNINGHAM, HEATHER FALK,NORMA JEAN FUENTES, PATRICIAGENTZ, HOLLY GOAD, CATHERINEHELD, JODY JAKUBIK, RUTHTESSMER, TABITHA ZIMMER,
))))))))
No.:)Plaintiffs,vs.GOVERNOR MARK DAYTON, in HisOfficial Capacity as Governor of the StateOf Minnesota, and JOSH TILSEN, in HisOfficial Capacity as Commissioner of theBureau of Mediation Services,Defendants.
)))))))))))
COMPLAINTDemand for Jury Trial
Plaintiffs are individuals who operate child care businesses in their own homes.They bring this suit to enjoin and declare unconstitutional Minnesota Executive Order 11-31, which calls for State certification of an organization to act as their exclusiverepresentative for purposes of dealing with the State. The Executive Order violatesPlaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as securedagainst state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, toindividually choose with whom they associate to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
CASE 0:12-cv-00149-SRN-JSM Document 1 Filed 01/19/12 Page 1 of 9
 
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1331 because it arises under the United States Constitution, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1343 because Plaintiffs seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has the authorityunder 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to grant declaratory relief and other relief basedthereon.2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1392.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs are individuals who operate family daycare businesses in theirown homes. They reside and operate their family daycares in the following counties inthe State of Minnesota (“State”): Dana Akre (Anoka), Addie Clyde (Carlton), CynthiaCunningham (Ramsey), Heather Falk (Carlton), Norma Jean Fuentes (Hennepin), PatriciaGentz (Dakota), Holly Goad (Carlton), Catherine Held (Dakota), Jody Jakubik (Anoka),Jennifer Parrish (Olmsted), Ruth Tessmer (Anoka), and Tabitha Zimmer (Pine).4. Defendant Mark Dayton is the Governor of the State of Minnesota and itschief executive officer, and is sued in his official capacity.5. Defendant Josh Tilsen is the Commissioner of the Minnesota Bureau oMediation Services (“BMS”), and is sued in his official capacity.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. Family Daycare Providers
6. A family daycare provider (“Provider”) is an individual licensed to providechild care services to up to fourteen (14) children in his or her own residence.
See
Minn.
CASE 0:12-cv-00149-SRN-JSM Document 1 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 9
 
3
Stat. § 245A.03; Minn. R. 9502.0315, subp 9, 11, 13. Approximately 11,000 Providersare currently licensed in the State, which includes all Plaintiffs.7. Providers are the proprietors of home-based businesses for federal tax andothers purposes, and may employ one or more employees in their family daycares.
Cf 
.Minn. Stat. § 119B.09, subd. 9. Currently, Plaintiffs Addie Clyde, Jennifer Parrish andTabitha Zimmer each employs one employee, Catherine Held employs five employees,and Dana Akre employs six employees in their respective child care businesses.8. Some customers of family daycares are low-income families enrolled in theState’s Child Care Assistance Program (“CCAP”), Minn. Stat. § 119B
et seq
., which isoperated pursuant to the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990,42 U.S.C. § 9858
et seq
. This public-assistance program subsidizes participating families’costs of obtaining child care for their children.9. The amount of the CCAP subsidy is set by statute. Minn. Stat. § 119B.13.Subsidized families are responsible for paying their child care provider a designated co-payment,
id 
. at § 119B.12, and any difference between their provider’s rates and theCCAP reimbursement rate and co-payment.
Id 
. at § 119B.13, subd. 1(f).10. Families enrolled in CCAP may use any qualified child care service willingto accept their business, to include family daycares. Minn. Stat. § 119B.09, subd. 5. TheCCAP subsidy is paid directly to the child care service, unless the care is provided in thechild’s own home, in which case payment is directed through the family.
Id 
. at§ 119B.09, subd. 10.11. Providers willing to accept CCAP payments for their child care services
CASE 0:12-cv-00149-SRN-JSM Document 1 Filed 01/19/12 Page 3 of 9

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->