Cynthia Guidice, Claudette Morales, Charlene Williams, Byher Next Friend, Viola Williams, Anna Bushman,individually and on Behalf of All Otherssimilarly Situated,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Larry D. Jackson, Commissioner, Virginia Department Ofsocial Services, Defendant-appellee, v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services,third Party Defendant, 915 F.2d 1564 (4th Cir. 1990)

In this class action, the appellants are residents of Stafford County, Virginia, who have applied for or received benefits under either Virginia's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program^*  or its Medicaid program. They brought suit against Larry D. Jackson in his official capacity as Commissioner of Virginia's Department of Social Services (DSS), claiming that the method used by DSS to determine program eligibility and benefits violates federal law and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment because it denies equal benefits to equally situated people. Following oral argument on cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the Commissioner on all claims.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. In 1974, the DSS placed Stafford County in the lowest cost-of-living category. Since then, Stafford County has lost its rural nature and its low cost of living in comparison to other Virginia counties. Stafford County, along with approximately 62 other localities across Virginia, no longer belongs in the cost-of-living category to which it was originally assigned for purposes of determining eligibility and benefit levels for AFDC and Medicaid claimants. Nonetheless, the DSS has not revised its initial determination and Stafford County remains in the lowest cost-of-living category. This results in Stafford County residents receiving lower benefits from AFDC and Medicaid than people who live in less or equally expensive areas of Virginia.

Despite various studies that demonstrate this disparity, Virginia has opted to maintain the categories established in 1974, citing cost as the sole reason. The question is whether the state is required by federal statutory or constitutional law to update its classification of localities to address this inequity.

After a thorough review of the pertinent statutes, regulations, legislative history, and case law, the district court found that neither the statutes nor the regulations require the state to revise a classification policy that conformed to federal law when it was created. The district court also rejected the equal protection claim, finding that the state's decision to maintain the status quo in light of budgetary constraints was rationally based and free from invidious discrimination. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 483-87 (1970).

We find no error in the court's analysis and affirm on the basis of the district court opinion. Guidice v. Jackson, 726 F. Supp. 632 (E.D. Va. 1989).

AFFIRMED.