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, Page20 of 158 when Governor’s 1977 Executive Order 45 presented to the SDNY Federal Court to accomplish the settlement was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable by the New York State CourtofAppeals, Fullilove v Beame 48 NY2d 376 1979 and Fullilove v Carey 48 NY2d 826 1979, EDNYCase 20-cv-06131 Dkt 22 Attachments#19 and 20. Since the failure of Executive Order 45, there has been little or no real affirmative action toward providing equal opportunity for employment. Opening the gates of opportunity is not, in fact, equality if a person does not have the necessary skills. The New York Governor has failed over these many years to correct the failure of Governors Executive Order 45, frustrating the Alternative Employment Practice and the mandates of the Civil Rights Act. These cases involve a 1991-1994 approved alternative employment practice program (the “Percy Program”), EDNYCase 20-cv-06131, Appeal No. 21-1585 Dkt. 22 Attachment 21. These cases are of national significance relating to economic opportunity for members of the Class; cases of uncharted procedures involving class management and class representation, not to mention the difficulties that the Class has experienced in realizing the relief afforded so many years ago in Percy v. Brennan, supra. 18
Case21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page21of 158 Addendum "B" The Class represented by Donna Hodge, Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams, Alexi Arias, Albert E. Percy, Percy Jobs and Careers Corporation intends to raise on appeal at least the following issues, without prejudice to its right to raise different or additional issues The Lower Court issued an identical Decision and Order in 34 cases. This pre- ArgumentStatement on Appeal parses the Decision and Order to address only the issues that apply to each Case on appeal identified by the Appellant as applicable to that Lower CourtCase in which this Pre-ArgumentStatement on Appeal is being filed, without prejudice to the right to raise different or additional issues and briefs on behalf of the Appellant: 1. Whether the Lower Court erred in failing to recognize that the defendant parties were named only as putative members of a class of defendants, and that the Lower Court failed to recognize the identified putative class of defendants as potential defendant class members. The standard of review is de novo, as the Lower Court's conclusions on the application, interpretation and construction of state and federal civil procedures, including interpretations of federal statutes. 2. Whether the Lower Court erred in failing to recognize that uploading to the CM/ECF system was done in accordance with instructions from the EDNYCourt’s Operations Manager. The standard of review is de novo, as the Lower Court's conclusions on the application, interpretation and construction of state and federal civil procedures, including interpretations of federal statutes. 3. Whether the Lower Court erred in failing to recognize that these matters before the Lower Court involve an Alternative Employment Practice under the 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§2000e et al, commonly referred to as PL Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1991), which sets forth a procedure whereby the Plaintiff Class as the Complaining Party can demonstrate to Respondents an Alternative Employment Practice to address the disparate impact of the lack of skills caused by inadequate training of persons in the Plaintiff Class so as to have equal employment opportunity by possessing the necessary skills to compete for jobs. The standard of review is de novo as to the Lower Courts conclusions on the application, interpretation and construction of laws in civil cases, including the interpretation of federal and state statutes, as well as the lower court's findings and conclusions are on mixed questions of law and fact.
