A judge will let more than 400 poor Nebraska parents sue the state for allegedly taking away Medicaid coverage because they didn’t work enough hours under a welfare-to-work rule.

The Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest says the order from Lancaster County District Court Judge Karen Flowers allowing a class action lawsuit is the first step toward changing an unfair rule that illegally punishes parents trying to get back on their feet.

“When Medicaid is removed, most low-income parents must go without needed health care, which makes them less able to work, care for their kids and move toward self-sufficiency,’’ said Becky Gould, executive director of Nebraska Appleseed.

Flowers signed an order allowing class-action status on Friday, according to Appleseed.

Under the policy, a single parent with one or more children younger than 6 years old must work at least 20 hours a week to retain Medicaid. A single parents whose children are older than 6 must work at least 30 hours a week. And two-parent families must work a combined minimum of 35 hours or 55 hours a week, depending on whether they get federally funded child care, according to Erin Ching, a staff attorney at Appleseed.

The lawsuit, filed in May, says that Health and Human Services’ policy of removing Medicaid coverage from parents who fail to fully meet work requirements under Nebraska’s welfare-to-work program isn’t allowed under state law.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the state’s Welfare Reform Act only allows cash assistance to be taken away as a penalty for participating in Employment First, the state’s welfare-to-work program.

State officials, including Attorney General Jon Bruning’s office, said they couldn’t comment on the order because they hadn’t seen it.

Ching said that because failure to meet the state’s work rule often results in one or three month suspensions of Medicaid, some of the 400 parents currently have Medicaid. The parents that will make up the class-action suit didn’t have Medicaid during the first three months of the year, Ching said.

Only the original plaintiff, not the 400, are seeking damages from the state. The others are asking the state to change its rule.