It is a fight to level the playing field to be able to compete for jobs and careers on the basis of skills and make available apprentice training to all. In 1973 Al Percy launched a class action lawsuit to give workers like him a chance to better their lot in life. It would also ensure the availability of skilled workers to build the infrastructure of the future.
Who is Al Percy? What is the lawsuit?
A short video follows below. there are also helpful and informative links on this website
Case21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page14 of 158 Albert Percy, Class Representative for the Percy Class. Mr. Kernan’s role was to provide technical research on apprenticeship needed to implement the relief. Mr. Kernan has represented the Percy Class from the time that he was recruited in 1978 to provide assistance in the preparation of affirmative action apprenticeship training to address the failure of the settlement in Percy v. Brennan supra. Mr. Kernan’s experience with skills training (now the Alternative Employment Practice in this litigation) began while at advanced Infantry training at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. As an enlisted US Marine at Parris Island Recruit Depot Platoon 1039, Mr. Kernan was ordered for advanced infantry training at Camp Lejeune North Carolina. At Camp Lejeune, Mr. Kernan received word that he was selected to be trained for CORDS: Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support, a pacification program of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War. President Nixon called it Vietnamization, and its intent was to restore and rebuild the country of South Vietnam and to rebuild infrastructure working alongside and training local inhabitants. Based on competitive testing, Mr. Kernan was selected by the US Department of Navy for an appointment pursuant to Title 10 §2107 of the US Code for commissioning as a Second Lieutenant in the US Marine Corps into a classified under CORDS. Mr. Kernan reported to Quantico, Virginia Marine Corps base for ordinance and procedures training, and reported to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) for accelerated advanced engineering training for deployment May 1971. Then, in the early months of 1971, enemy engagement ceased as the US withdrew from South Vietnam, combat engineering strength went from more than 20,000 to (by May 1971) less than 1000. On May 24, 1971, the First Marine Combat Engineer Battalion withdrew from South Vietnam and shipped back to Pendleton, California. The last Marine 12
Case21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page15 of 158 Corps ground action in Vietnam was in May 1971. The withdrawal which began on January 1, 1971 was complete by the end of May 1971. This was all while anti-war protests were reaching their peak, and on June 13, 1971 the Pentagon Papers began to be published by the New York Times. When Field combat engineers were no longer needed in South Vietnam, the CORDS mission as it involved the US Marines was abandoned upon US forces withdrawal and Mr. Kernan’s deployment orders were canceled. Mr. Kernan left military service, returning to civilian life as a veteran trained as a combat engineer in demolition, explosives, and ordnance, skilled in civil and mechanical trades for demolition support, field construction of machinery, structures, systems and controls. Mr. Kernan then put his military experience and training to use with development of an alternative employment practice. Working with attorney Dennis R. Yeager Esq. after the conclusion of the Percy v. Brennan Case 73-cv-04279 led to Mr. Kernan’s handling the case of Lancaster Development, Inc. v. Ross 82 A.D.2d 1013. This case identified the need for a framework to provide employee benefits, including apprenticeship, to meet supplemental wage benefit requirements in compliance with the New York State Labor Law §220 and the federal Davis-Bacon Act 40 USC §§276a to 276a-5. Mr. Kernan undertook to develop a plan to fit the framework required of Percy v. Brennan, supra. The training knowledge Mr. Kernan brought from CORDS was a developed, paid OJT apprenticeship, one to meet the affirmative action demands of Percy v. Brennan. This became the Percy Program Alternative Employment Practice, also set forth at reference Case21-cv-01421Document #6 Attachment #36. This provides benefit programs in compliance with the US Davis-Bacon Act (40 USC §§276a to 276a-5) and 13
