Woman sues NAP alleging unlawful termination

A woman has recently filed a lawsuit against the Nutrition Assistance Program at the Superior Court alleging unlawful termination.

Vanessa Andres, a former NAP certification unit supervisor, is suing her former employer for allegedly unlawfully terminating her.

Andres, through her attorney Keith Chambers, is asking the Superior Court to issue an order reinstating her to her previous position and award her back pay.

Chambers, in his motion, said the Superior Court has jurisdiction over his client’s case because, despite filing an administrative appeal months back at the agency level, her appeal has yet to proceed.

“Because there is no definite timeline for Ms. Andres’ appeal to be heard by the Civil Service Commission, and Ms. Andres has already waited months to receive the justice she deserves, Ms. Andres respectfully argues that this court exercise its subject matter jurisdiction over this matter,” the lawyer said.

According to the lawsuit, while Andres was a certification unit supervisor for NAP, on March 18, 2022, Andres submitted an application for Nutrition Assistance on behalf of her boyfriend Jose Blas Manglona Jr.’s daughter who lived with them.

The application listed the daughter as the head of household.

The application indicated that the daughter is under the age of 18; lacks a bank account; lacks employment; and appointed her father, Manglona, as her authorized representative.

Andres did not sign the application.

As part of the application, Andres submitted and signed a Declaration of Basic Needs and Living Arrangements.

In a Statement of Support, Andres stated that she provided the daughter with “free housing, utilities, laundry, transportation and basic needs at no cost.”

The statement of support also stated that the housing structure consists of three bedrooms, two restrooms and two kitchens”; Andres and the daughter had “separate living arrangements”; Andres and the daughter “do not share or prepare food or meals”; and the daughter had “her own kitchen to prepare her own meals: to include storing her food.”

The daughter also submitted an Expense Questionnaire Form that answered accurately the questions posed.

The daughter printed her name on the bottom of the Expense Questionnaire Form, but Manglona signed the form as the authorized representative.

According to Andres’ appeal, NAP failed to do a home check as required by the regulations.

“Had NAP performed the home check as required by the regulations, they would have seen that the daughter has her own living space and kitchen area,” Chambers said.

After Andres submitted the application, and per her duties as a certification unit supervisor, she assigned the application to NAP representative Frances Cruz.

Based on the documents submitted, Cruz approved the daughter’s application on March 29, 2022.

Andres played no role in the application’s approval process and was not in contact with Cruz concerning the application Chambers said.

After the application was approved, Andres was seen by NAP personnel in a vehicle with her boyfriend and the daughter’s authorized representative, Manglona, in the drive-thru line to pick up benefits.

On June 1, 2022, an investigation was opened into the filing and approval of the application.

The investigation resulted in the Notice of Proposed Adverse Action-Termination or PAA issued on May 19, 2023.

The PAA stated that, per the NAP rules, the daughter was not qualified for food stamp benefits due to her age; and neither Andres nor Manglona submitted their financial information along with the application.

The PAA alleged misuse of authority as a certification unit supervisor and potential fraud.

The PAA recommended Andres’ termination from her employment.

Andres appealed the PAA to her appointing authority who, on June 26, 2023, issued a Final Decision on Adverse Action, which gave full effect to the PAA as originally proposed and terminated Andres’ employment.

On July 12, 2023, Andres filed her appeal with the Civil Service Commission.

However, at the time, CSC informed Andres’ counsel that the commission did not have a hearing officer and did not have a plan to retain one in the immediate future.

On Oct. 2, 2023, Andres’ counsel was informed by a CSC representative that the commission still did not have a hearing officer due to a lack of funding and that they were not sure when one would be retained.