EDNY Case 21-cv-02194 US Court of Appeals Second Circuit 21-1573 Doc #8 Civil Appeal Pre-Argument Statement (Form C)

Case

Case 21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page6 of 158 20-cv-6131 Dkt 130 and 133, the single cause of action 20-cv-6131 was split into related nine actions with 20-cv-6131 as the lead case so that all parties could be identified and noticed. The Decision from the Lower Court recites that the split of the cases to accommodate the CM/ECF system was a burden upon the Court. Counsel for the Class Plaintiff offered apologies for any inconvenience caused. The intention was to comply with the directives of the EDNY Court’s Operations Manager in filing the various pleadings to accommodate the MDLP. FEDERAL JURISDICTION These matters before the Lower Court involve an Alternative Employment Practice intended to address chronic lack of skills and benefits for a Class of employees. EDNY Case 20-cv-06131, Dkt 22, Attachment#21. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2[k][1][A][ii]) provides that “An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if … the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.” The statute provides that once the plaintiff established a prima facie case of disparate impact, the employer has the burden of persuasion to “demonstrate that the challenged practice [was] job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity...”. Plaintiff, alleging disparate-impact discrimination under Title VII, is ready to prove that an alternative, less discriminatory practice existed which the employer members of the defendant class refused to adopt, therefore shifting the burden to the employer to rebut the claim by offering a valid justification for the challenged practice. 4

Case 21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page7 of 158 20-cv-06131 is about providing relief to black and Spanish surnamed persons that have been disenfranchised due to a lack of skill to compete for decent paying jobs and careers, fighting to restore the ability to work, earn, buy, sell, pay taxes and do all the things that make up a strong middle-class. 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) sets forth a procedure whereby the Plaintiff Class as the Complaining Party can demonstrate to Respondents an Alternative Employment Practice addressing 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. With respect to the 8,773 putative members of the defendant class: Members were identified as potential defendant class members by analytic services based on standard industrial code (“SIC”), North American industrial code system (“NAIC”) and Dodge Analytics, which was used to identify businesses that employ persons in apprenticeable occupations under the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 section 1 (29 U.S.C. 50). Potential members of the defendant class were contacted utilizing the methodology set forth in the statutory language of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2[k][1][A][ii]. The Plaintiff Class demonstrated an alternative employment practice by providing hyperlinks to each prospective member of the defendant class that demonstrated an alternative employment practice and advised of the statutory opportunities 42 U.S.C. 2000 e-2 as defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000d. All the above was done simply to persuade a prospective class defendant to adopt the alternative employment practice. 5