The Percy Program

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.

Views
3 years ago

Percy Action

Complaint states as

Complaint states as follows: III. COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION 1. This Complaint is on behalf of Plaintiff Percy and the Class he represents. Procedurally, this class litigation is being commenced in the five boroughs (“Five Counties”) of the City of New York, where Percy started his original action Percy v. Brennan 73-cv-04279. Building on that footing, seeking here to enforce the relief awarded to the Percy Class in Percy v. Brennan 73-cv- 04279, is this plenary action as above captioned in the US District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 2. Armed with skills, able to be called upon to carry out emergency work activities, applying new ways and advances in technology, using sound judgement, demonstrating speed and accuracy needed to meet the needs of a crisis, increasing job complexity, challenges employers to recruit and retain a job-ready workforce. Now more than ever there is a desperate need to build skills necessary to protect the safety and well-being of frontline trusted workers in the unselfish work they are called upon to do for the communities and public they serve. This historic crisis is made worse by lack of knowledge, skills and competency in the workforce, a problem needing to be immediately addressed as described in this Complaint. As we stand now, we are not prepared. 3. This undertaking seems massive and profound, and it is, reference the PRELUDE. We have been probing, drilling and pile driving on behalf of Percy, deep into the history of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity to find out why it fails. Each time we think we have reached a solid foundation to build from, only to find we have not reached bedrock. Learning and adjusting we are now sitting on a solid foundation of Percy v. Brennan Case 73-cv-04279. 4. The lead cause of action in this Complaint is against defendant State of New York for failure of a settlement involving New York State Executive Order 45 (9 NYCRR 3.45) (“EO 45”). This action is grounded upon the final and enforceable Memorandum/Order (“Memorandum/Order”) of Judge Lasker reported at 384 F Supp 800 of November 8, 1974, settled by agreement 2

accepting Defendant New York State’s offer of EO 45. The problem is that EO 45 failed, and the Percy Class was never notified (paragraph 219 - 224). 5. The causes of actions against each employer (“Employer(s)”) identified in tag-along actions, involve the liability of each Employer for unlawful employment practices of discrimination where the Plaintiff is able to meet its burden of production and persuasion proving that there was a less discriminatory alternative method of employment practice available that the Employer could have adopted, failing to adopt the alternative employment practice without valid justification is an unlawful employment practice violating 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii) and (k)(1)(C) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1991. 6. Moreover, an Employer with contracts receiving federal funding, liability of such an Employer is for breach of contract where such Employer has breached contractual conditions requiring compliance with Presidential Executive Order 11246 (“EO 11246”). Members of the Percy Class are beneficiaries identified in contracts as conditions and obligations where Federal Funding (“Federal Funding”) is involved. 7. This action enforces an alternative employment practice ("XI. ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE" paragraphs 153 - 181 of this Complaint), on behalf of the Percy Class. 8. Damages to the Percy Class for lost wages, for lost opportunity compensation, damages also affecting members of the Percy Classes’ children and families, significantly disadvantaged in education and skills, struggling to get a job, not able to compete for jobs and employment based on skills and not by mark of the color of a person’s skin or ethnicity. IV. PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTION 9. This action is brought as a private attorney general action as permitted by 42 U.S.C. 1988, to enforce certain federal laws, contracts, commitments, obligations and covenants to provide affirmative action for equal employment to correct disparate impact, low wages with few fringe benefits, minimal levels of training, and the lack of a career ladder, contributing to a chronic workforce shortfall, being caused by the neglectful use of Federal Funding thereby impacting not only the Percy Class and safeguarding the 3

Alternative Employment Practice Percy Program