The lawsuit alleges that the county violates state and federal law by failing to provide "reasonable accommodations" to beneficiaries with mental disabilities. The plaintiffs say this failure leaves thousands without money for food, shelter and basic necessities. A key problem identified in the suit is that the county mostly requires welfare applicants to identify themselves as having a mental disability. If they do not, they must go without exemptions for work requirements, or special assistance in obtaining and maintaining a job. This method allegedly falls short because applicants often don't know they have mental disabilities, don't understand how their disability may affect their access to benefits, or don't report their disability for fear of being stigmatized. That almost invariably sends an applicant into trouble, the plaintiffs assert, because the tasks involved in maintaining eligibility for general assistance and food stamps prove too difficult.

One requirement cited in the suit is a lengthy eligibility report beneficiaries must give the Social Services Agency if they are deemed "employable." Because their disabilities were not identified when they applied for assistance, these people are expected to meet the exhaustive reporting requirements but cannot. The suit names Alameda County residents Frank Santos, Diane Qualls, and Rebecca Johnson as plaintiffs. All three say they are mentally disabled and have been wrongly cut off from general assistance payments of $336 a month or from its food stamp program.

Other California counties have chosen different routes: In Contra Costa County, for instance, applicants are required to undergo an evaluation called a "brief symptom inventory" that is designed to detect psychological problems. If the screening detects possible problems, a second is done by mental health experts.