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

105. Yet, members of the

105. Yet, members of the Percy Class have been constantly denied access to apprenticeship to gain skills to compete for employment, breaching EO 11246. The Defendants the State of New York and its agencies under Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York (hereinafter the “Government Agencies”) violated and continue to violate the Memorandum/Order and Order by having failed to implement the settlement in Case 73-cv-04279, in harmony with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specifically 42 USCA §2000e-2 and §2000d as amended in 1991 (the “Civil Rights Act”), and in breach of Federal Funding conditions, and of rights secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§§1981, 1983 and 1985. IX. PRIOR RECORD, CLASS STANDING Precedent, Authority and Jurisdiction 106. This Complaint is based on the record in US SDNY Case 73-cv-04279, the case file archived as potentially of national significance in St. Louis, Missouri, the case file returned from St. Louis to the National archives in New York City, returned upon the request on behalf of Albert Percy, to and certified by the National Archives to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which record was then filed by ECF as the Docket on Appeal to the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 107. This action seeks to enforce the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Order in the Case of Percy v Brennan Case 73-cv-04279 (the “Percy Action” or “Case 73-cv-04279” or “Percy v. Brennan”) reported at (384 F Supp 800 [S.D.N.Y. 1974]), the Memorandum/Order, rendered by Judge Lasker on November 8, 1974 in favor of Percy Class, brought on behalf of disadvantaged persons seeking affirmative action in apprenticeship and employment in the New York construction industry. 108. A copy of the Amended Complaint in Case 73-cv-04279 is at Docket #97, Appendix 1, Volume 1, page 58, Docket 17-2273 in the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The title of Case 73-cv-04279 was changed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to FRAP 43(c)(2) and Plaintiff Percy was ordered to revise all of its printing to reflect this changed title 26

which was done at Docket #96-104 in 17-2273, replacing Rockefeller with Cuomo and Brennan with Scalia, as well as other public officials where a new person has succeeded them in office. 109. Standing was found by the Lasker Court in its Memorandum/Order stating the Percy Class has alleged “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions” citing “Baker v Carr (369 US 186, 204, 82 S Ct 691, 703, 7 L Ed 2d 663 [1962]); (see Flast v Cohen, 392 US 83, 101, 88 S Ct 1942, 20 L Ed 2d 947 [1968])”. In Percy v. Brennan, black and Spanish-surnamed workers were alleged to “have been and continue to be denied employment in the New York construction industry, demonstrating the Percy Class continues to have a personal stake”, 384 F Supp 800, page 808 [S.D.N.Y. 1974], 17-2273, Docket #99, Appendix 1, Volume 3, page 684. 110. The Memorandum/Order of Judge Lasker in the Percy Action, Percy v. Brennan, 384 F. Supp. 800, (S.D.N.Y. 1974), page 811 in 17-2273, Docket #99, Appendix 1, Volume 3, page 660, granted Plaintiffs motion to be maintained as a class and found standing to seek relief for the enforcement of EO 11246, as a class of persons that EO 11246 was designed to protect from injuries resulting from racial discrimination within the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, 42 USC 1981, and has met the requirements of subdivisions 2 and 3 of FRCP 23. See also, Docket #99, Appendix 1, Volume 3, page 653 in 17-2273. 111. The Class defined and certified by Judge Lasker in Case 73-cv-04279 was “all black and Spanish-surnamed persons who are capable of performing, or capable of learning to perform, construction work, and who wish to perform construction work within the jurisdiction of unions that are members of the Defendant Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York” with Plaintiff Albert Percy designated as the Class Representative (384 F Supp 800, at page 811 and also at 17-2273, Docket #99, Appendix 1, Volume 3, Page 660). 27

Alternative Employment Practice Percy Program