Cyntron v. HCD Update: No Injunction Against Voucher Regulations

On June 12 the judge in Cyntron v. HCD denied Cyntron's motion for preliminary injunction against the voucher regulations. The seven page document provides a point-by-point argument against virtually all of the positions Cyntron made in its complaint (which originally appeared in EZ Policy Blog back in February). Here is an example of how the judge responded:

Plaintiff identifies various inconsistencies in the second through the twelfth causes of action in the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiff's claims with respect to each regulation and finds no direct conflict with section 22622.7. To the extent that a regulation appears inconsistent, defendant has provided a reasoned explanation. For example, plaintiff contends that a qualified employee under section 222622.7 [sic.] includes eligibility for the Federal Job Training Partnership ("JTPA") Act or its successor, but that category of eligibility is deleted in regulation 8450.5. However, defendant explains that the JTPA was repealed in 1998, effective July 1, 2000. Thus the regulation focuses on its successor program, the WIA. Plaintiff's further contention that the regulation unlawfully restricts eligibility to certain categories of WIA services also has a reasonable explanation. Under the WIA, a broader class of employees are eligible to receive services. The WIA categories targeted in the vouchering regulations are limited so as to be consistent with the categories of employees previously eligible under the JTPA.

In sum, plaintiff has not shown a probability that it will succeed in showing that the regulations are so inconsistent and contradictory to the legislative mandate that they must be struck down as invalid.

Plaintiff's showing of irreparable harm is similarly weak. As the Court understands plaintiff's argument, plaintiff believes it may not be able to obtain the necessary documentation to support the issuance of a voucher for an employee who would not qualify under the regulations as they now exist but who would qualify if the regulations are held to be invalid. To the extent that plaintiff believes a certain limitation on qualified employees is invalid, plaintiff is free to obtain documentation of the eligibility category that plaintiff believes should be included in the regulation while it maintains its challenge to that regulation....The remaining issues identified by plaintiff, e.g. that it will be required to invade an employee's privacy rights to obtain the necessary documentation of eligibility, are not persuasive.

Of course, there is a simple response to the JTPA issue raised, which is that Cyntron wants to be able to retroactively voucher employees hired before July 1, 2000. Nevertheless, this seems to be a significant setback for Cyntron's case.

There was a hearing scheduled for June 28, but that was later postponed until October 15.