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

83. Defendant New York

83. Defendant New York Building and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund, referenced in Case 73-cv-04279 as a Defendant, no longer in existence, was an organization established by building and construction trade unions. Most, if not all of its members are also members of the Defendant Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, and is named as a nominal Defendant previously named as Defendants in SDNY 73-cv-04279 as their interests may appear here because it was a party to Case 73-cv-04279. 84. Defendant New York Plan for Training, Inc. referenced in Case 73-cv-04279 as a Plaintiff, is no longer in existence, and is named as a nominal Defendant previously named as Defendants in SDNY 73-cv-04279 as their interests may appear here because it was a party to Case 73-cv-04279. 85. Defendant the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People referenced in Case 73-cv-04279 as a Plaintiff, has its national headquarters at 4805 Mt. Hope Drive, Baltimore MD 21215, and is named as a nominal Defendant previously named as Defendants in SDNY 73-cv-04279 as their interests may appear here because it was a party to Case 73-cv-04279. 86. Defendant Manuel E. Mejia, now deceased, was a Spanish-surnamed citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of New York. He was a construction worker, fully competent to perform skilled construction work as an operating engineer, who was repeatedly denied the opportunity to perform that work by virtue of the discriminatory employment practices prevalent in the construction industry in the City of New York. Plaintiff Mejia was a named Plaintiff in the US Southern District of New York Case 73-cv-04279, Appendix 1, Volume 1, page 5, in the Docket on Appeal 17-2273 in Docket #97-104, and is named here as a nominal defendant as his interest may appear because he was a party to Case 73-cv-04279. 87. Defendant John Mercado, now deceased, was a Spanish-surnamed citizen of the United States and resident of the City of New York who was ablebodied, intelligent and fully capable of learning to perform skilled construction work. He was repeatedly denied the opportunity to perform such work by virtue of the discriminatory employment practices prevalent in the construction industry in the City of New York. Plaintiff Mercado was a named Plaintiff on the US Southern District of New York Case 73-cv- 20

04279, Appendix 1, Volume 1, page 5, in the Docket on Appeal 17-2273 in the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket #97-104, and is named here as a nominal defendant as his interest may appear because he was a party to Case 73-cv-04279. 88. Defendant Oriska Insurance Company (also referred to herein as “OIC” and, “Oriska Insurance”) was and still is a domestic corporation chartered and licensed by the State of New York as a Property and Casualty Insurance Company engaged in the sale and writing of workers’ compensation, surety and fidelity bonding and health and disability insurance, maintaining offices at 129 South 8 th Street, Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Oriska Corporation (also referred to herein as “OCorp”) is a New York corporation which owns 100% of the issued and outstanding stock of OIC, does business at 6 Pennyfield Ave, Throggs Neck, Bronx County, New York. Oriska Insurance Company and Oriska Corporation are sued here as their interests may appear. OIC and OCorp also collectively referred to as “Oriska”. VIII. BASIS OF THIS ACTION 89. The lead cause of action in this Complaint is against defendant State of New York for failure of 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 accepting Defendant New York State’s offer of EO 45. The problem is that EO 45 failed, and the Percy Class was never notified, XII DEFENDANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND DEFENDANT STATE OFFERED A SETTLEMENT OF PERCY V. BRENNAN IN CASE 73-CV-04279 THAT IS UNENFORCEABLE AND FAILED. 90. .The causes of actions against each employer (“Employer(s)”) identified [on a schedule], involves 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 21

Alternative Employment Practice Percy Program