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, Page8 of 158 The Lower Court failed to recognize that the complaint recites and explains the controlling statute (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2[k][1][A][ii]), which 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.” Subparagraph (C) provides that “[t]he demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to the concept of ‘alternative employment practice’.” The hyperlinks demonstrated the alternative employment practice to the members of the defendant class (a “demonstration” within the meaning of 42 USC 2000e-2), meeting the Complainants burden of persuasion as defined at 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d. 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 methodology whereby the Plaintiff Class as the Complaining Party can demonstrate to Respondents (the members of the putative Class Defendant) an Alternative Employment Practice under the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937, section 1 (29 U.S.C. 50), addressing the disparate impact of the lack of skills of persons in the Plaintiff Class so as to have equal employment opportunity by possessing the necessary skills to compete for jobs. Necessary skill and knowledge are provided by the Alternative Employment Practice. The Complaint states that the Class Plaintiffs, as the Complaining Party under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(ii), made the requisite demonstration to the members of the defendant class [as described in subparagraph (C) as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2 (k)(1)(A)(ii)], and that the respondents’ putative members of the defendant class failed to 6

Case 21-1573, Document 8, 07/12/2021, 3135699, Page9 of 158 implement the alternative practice, thereby causing unfair employment practices and disparate impact. The Alternative Employment Practice and its demonstration, referenced subparagraph (A)(ii), is in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989 as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k)(1)(C). The Complaint states that members of the defendant class, Respondents under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(ii), refused to adopt the Alternative Employment Practice and therefore a prima facie case to obtain relief for the Complaining Party Plaintiff Class is a meritorious federal cause of action of disparate impact on the plaintiff class as an illegal employment practice. The complaints filed in the Eastern District were dismissed sua sponte without opportunity to be heard. "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. A district court has no authority to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard." Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77 (2018), 2nd Circuit 2018. LEGAL STANDARD FOR THE NINE FEDERAL ACTIONS 20-cv06131 ET SEQ. The statutory procedure followed by the Plaintiff Class for bringing Case 20- cv06131 and the related cases is set forth in 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) whereby the Plaintiff Class as the Complaining Party can demonstrate to Respondents (the members of the defendant class) an Alternative Employment Practice to address the disparate impact of the lack of skills caused by 7