FSM citizen sues feds over denial of application for disaster assistance

A citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia filed yesterday a lawsuit in federal court against the U.S. Department of Labor and several others for allegedly denying his application for disaster unemployment assistance because he is an FSM citizen after Typhoon Soudelor struck the CNMI in 2015.

Okotan Ham also named as co-defendants in his complaint Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Employment Security Appeals Referees’ Office, and ESARO appeals officer Karen Moore.

Ham, through counsel, Jeanne H. Rayphand of the Northern Marianas Protection & Advocacy Systems Inc., is suing the defendants for failure to issue decision by statutory deadline.

Ham asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to issue an order compelling defendants to immediately decide on his appeal from denial of disaster unemployment assistance. He demanded payment for court costs and attorney’s fees.

Typhoon Soudelor struck the CNMI on Aug. 1, 2015. Four days later, a disaster declaration was issued.

According to Rayphand in the complaint, Ham timely filed for disaster assistance on Oct. 9, 2015.

Rayphand said that, on Oct. 15, 2015, a notice of determination of disaster unemployment assistance eligibility was issued, determining that plaintiff did not qualify for the program because he is an FSM citizen.

On Nov. 9, 2015, Ham timely filed a notice of appeal from the denial.

On Feb. 2, 2016, Ham followed up with the CNMI Department of Labor, informing it that no information had been received from the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Appeals Office, and requesting that it follow up to insure he receives the information regarding the appeals process and to insure his appeal had not been overlooked.

Rayphand said in response to telephone calls to the CNMI Labor, she (Rayphand) was informed that the appeal and a response were being processed.

Rayphand said that on May 31, 2016, she sent an email to the CNMI Labor secretary with copies to the Hawaii Department of Labor Appeals Board, informing them that still no response to Ham’s appeal had been processed.

The lawyer said she asked for their immediate attention to insure that Ham receives the information regarding the appeals process and to be sure that plaintiff’s appeal had not been overlooked.

She said on that same day, May 31, the CNMI Labor secretary responded by email “confirming that the Hawaii Appeals Office is in receipt of this case.”

With still no response, Rayphand said she emailed the CNMI Labor secretary again on July 21, 2016.

The following day, the CNMI Labor secretary responded by email that Ham’s case is still with the Hawaii Appeals Office and that the CNMI Labor is also waiting for any updates on the case as well.

Rayphand said when contacted, the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board responded that their office was the wrong office and that they copied the email to Employment Security Appeals Referees’ Office (ESARO).

Rayphand then emailed ESARO, requesting that they confirm that it had Ham’s appeal and asking what action was being taken on the appeal, but there was no response.

The lawyer said that, on Sept. 29, 2016, she emailed the CNMI Labor secretary with a copy to ESARO, asking for assistance regarding the appeal.

Rayphand also noted that the delay in responding to follow-up inquiries regarding the appeal and the failure to process and determine this appeal in a timely manner were clearly unreasonable and requested an immediate response within two weeks to avoid resort to court action.

The CNMI Labor secretary responded that she would forward the email to its San Francisco, U.S. Department of Labor office.

Rayphand said an oral argument on the appeal was held by telephone on Oct. 31, 2016.

Rayphand said she sent emails to ESARO thrice from December 2016 to February 2017, asking if there had been a decision in this appeal yet, but no response was received.

The lawyer said in response to her another email on March 23, 2017, ESARO on that same day sent an email apologizing for the delay and stating that the decision would be issued shortly.

Rayphand said she sent another email last April 14 to ESARO, asking if there is an expected date for the decision in this case, the deadline having long passed, but there was no response.

“No decision has been received on this appeal,” she pointed out.

Rayphand asserted that defendants’ failure to process and decide Ham’s appeal in a timely manner deprives him of his right to an appeal and due process of law.