COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES West v. Camden County Board of Social Services was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1985. The case involved a dispute between the Camden County Board of Social Services and a family who had applied for welfare benefits. The family, represented by the father, argued that the Board had violated their due process rights by denying them benefits without providing them with a hearing. The Board argued that they had not violated the family's rights because they had provided them with a hearing, but the family had failed to attend. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the family, finding that the Board had violated their due process rights by denying them benefits without providing them with a hearing. The Court held that the Board had a duty to provide the family with a hearing before denying them benefits, and that the Board had failed to do so. The Court also held that the Board had failed to provide the family with adequate notice of the hearing, and that this failure had resulted in the family being denied benefits without a hearing. The Court ordered the Board to provide the family with a hearing and to reconsider their application for benefits.

COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES In the dissenting opinion of West v. Camden County Board of Social Services, Justice O'Hern argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not a reasonable person would have known that their actions were in violation of Title VII. He further stated that there is no evidence in this case which suggests that Ms. West had any knowledge whatsoever about her rights under Title VII when she filed her complaint with the EEOC, nor did she receive any advice from anyone else regarding those rights prior to filing her complaint. Therefore, he concluded, since Ms. West lacked such knowledge at the time she filed her claim with the EEOC, then it cannot be said that a reasonable person would have been aware of their rights under Title VII either and thus should not be held liable for failing to file within 300 days as required by law.