922 P.2d at 1211. 14. In this case, Defendant was required to work as a workfare participant with the Project Forward Program. If Defendant declined to participate in this program, his wife would be required to participate in order to continue the family’s AFDC benefits. If his wife also declined to participate, the AFDC benefits would be terminated. Under these circumstances, the work for HSD by Defendant cannot reasonably be characterized as voluntary. Instead, Defendant was compelled to work in order to receive AFDC benefits for his family. 15. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Durand v. City of Woonsocket, 537 A.2d 129 (R.I.1988), reviewed a similar question regarding whether work was voluntary. In Durand the Court held that a participant in a sta 12 A.2d 1028, 1030 (Me. 1986) (<HOLDING>); Durand, 537 A.2d at 131 (“[T]he source of
holding that a workfare participant is not an employee of a municipality for the purposes of workers compensation because participant neither received nor could have expected to receive remuneration or wages for the services that he performs holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts holding that the court neither weighs the evidence nor substitutes its own judgment for that of the agency