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, Page4 of 158 LEAD CASE EDNY 20-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. 21-1573EDNY21-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 EDNY21-cv-02314, Appeal No. 21-1587 Identical allegations are asserted in each of the actions relating to identifying members of a class of defendants. The Plaintiff-Appellants conferred with the Administrative Attorney’s Office of the SecondCircuitCourt Clerk's office, and, in the interest of judicial and litigation economy and efficiency, have submitted motions for similar case management procedures to govern these cases. The determination of the issues in appeal 21-1585 (EDNY 20-cv-06131) and its related cases will be determinative of the appeals held in abeyance under lead appeal 21-1585. IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANTS IN EDNY 20-CV-06131 ET SEQ. The Lower Court failed to recognize the identified putative class of defendants as potential defendant class members when the Lower Court stated that the plaintiff class (“Class” or “Percy”) had: “filed eleven nearly-identical actions in this district against at least 8,773 defendants”; “[t]he apparently baseless identification of defendants suggests that there is no genuine connection between the allegations in the complaints and the thousands of defendants identified in the case captions. Without a legitimate foundation for naming such an extensive list of defendants, [my] conduct appears to rise to the level of harassment against them,” and “has imposed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the court’s administrative procedures, its staff, and its filing system.” Id. at pp. 23-24. There is a legitimate foundation for naming the putative members of the class of defendants in question under FRCP 23. There is a scant authority for handling a 2
Case21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page5 of 158 defendant class. These cases, at this initial stage, have not yet presented the defendant class to the Lower Court for certification. Counsel for the Plaintiff was in the process of organizing the defendant class when the Lower Court, without any matter pending before it, dismissed these cases with prejudice, citing misuse of the court CM/ECF system. UPLOADING TO THE CM/ECF SYSTEM WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE LOWER COURT Counsel for the Plaintiff Class worked closely with Court personnel, staff, and the filing system on the pleadings in question to minimize any possible burden on Lower Court staff. Counsel never intended to impose an unnecessary burden on the Lower Court’s administrative staff and filing system. The Lower Court stated that: “The court’s ECF filing system caps the number of defendants that may be listed per ECF entry, and in an apparent attempt to evade those limits, Kernan has filed hundreds, if not thousands, of ECF entries, each listing a subset of the defendants. (See, e.g., Percy v. Oriska Corp. Gen. Contracting, 20-cv-6131 (Dkt. Nos. 28-58, 60-62, 64-66, 68, 70-86, 88- 89, 92-93, 97- 128, 135-146). None of the complaints explains the individual significance of any of these named defendants or discusses how or why they were identified.” (May 27, 2021 Order, p. 12) Initially, a single case was filed in this District under Docket No. Case No. 1:20-cv- 06131 with attached PDF schedule listing all potential class defendants. But the Court directed counsel for the Plaintiff Class to add each individual defendant to the docket so that each would receive notice. Issues were encountered adding the large number of parties because of the ECF timeouts, all of which will be documented in an appendix on this appeal. Due to these technical issues, the system did not permit upload of parties past a certain amount. To overcome this limitation and satisfy the notice requirements of the Multi-District Litigation Panel (“MDLP”), and upon notice to the Magistrate assigned to 3
