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, Page22 of 158 4. Whether the Lower Court erred in finding that the conduct of counsel for the class warranted an award of attorney's fees and costs, including: (a) whether Counsel for the Class litigated reasonably and in good faith? The appellate standard of review is de novo or abuse of discretion depending on whether the Lower Court deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 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. 5. Whether the Lower Court erred in in finding that eleven Federal Actions recited by the Lower Court in footnote 3 on Page 12 of the Lower Court Decision and Order, assert identical or substantially similar claims, when in fact only nine: LEAD CASE EDNY21- cv-06131, Appeal No. 21-1585, EDNY21-cv-02175, Appeal No. 21-1578, EDNY21-cv- 02182, Appeal No. 21-1577, EDNY21-cv-02194, Appeal No. 21-1573, EDNY21-cv-02198, Appeal No. 21-1570, EDNY21-cv-02311, Appeal No. 21-1574, EDNY21-cv-02283, Appeal No. 21-1597, EDNY21-cv-02313, Appeal No. 21-1572, and EDNY21-cv-02314, Appeal No. 21-1587, are identical or substantially similar. 6. Whether the Lower Court erred in dismissing the complaints filed in the Eastern District sua sponte without opportunity to be heard in that sua sponte dismissals without notice and an opportunity to be heard deviate from the traditions of the adversarial system and tend to produce the very effect they seek to avoid, a waste of judicial resources, by leading to appeals and remands. The appellate standard of review is de novo or abuse of discretion depending on whether the Lower Court deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 7. Whether the Lower Court erred in determining whether the actions of counsel for the Class was reasonably objective in determining whether to award attorney's fees and costs? The standard of review is de novo. 8. Whether the Lower Court erred in finding that the conduct of counsel for the class warranted an award of attorney's fees and costs, including: (a) whether Counsel for the Class litigated reasonably and in good faith by working with Court staff to upload the names are of potential class member defendant in good faith? The appellate standard of review is de novo or abuse of discretion depending on whether the Lower Court deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 9. Whether the Lower Court erred in finding that the representation of the plaintiff class was improper, and that sanctions were warranted. The appellate standard of review is de novo or abuse of discretion depending on whether the Lower Court deems the legal or factual
Case21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page23 of 158 issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 10. Whether the Lower Court erred in finding that the action against the class defendant was composed in bad faith and dismissed the Lead CaseEDNY21-cv-06131, Appeal No. 21- 1585 and the related tag-along appeals in relation to enforcing the relief awarded in Percy v. Brennan SDNY 73-cv-04279, which settlement relief was wrecked 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. The appellate standard of review is de novo or abuse of discretion depending on whether the Lower Court deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 11. Whether the Court erred in determining that attorneys' fees were available without permitting the parties to brief the issue on the merits in order to have the full understanding of the facts? The appellate standard of review is abuse of discretion. 12. Whether the Courts assessment of attorney's fees was based on an erroneous assessment of an incomplete record without giving the class the opportunity to submit and brief the issues being considered by the Lower Court on the merits. The appellate standard of review is de novo or abuse of discretion. The Class submits that the legal issues are predominate. By: s/_________________________________ James M. Kernan Attorneys for Appellants Donna Hodge, Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams Alexi Arias as the Class Representatives of a Class of Employees of Employer Defendants 26 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10004 Phone:(212) 697-9084 Fax (212) 656-1213 jkernan@kernanllp.com
