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

Settlement Executive Order 45 (9 NYCRR 3.45) Docket 103 17-2273, Appendix 2, Volume 4, pages 823, 851 and 860

  • Text
  • Certified
  • Lasker
  • Contractor
  • Regulations
  • Contracts
  • Minority
  • Fleisher
  • Assisted
  • Affirmative
  • Subcontractor
  • Settlement
  • Nycrr
  • Docket
  • Appendix
  • Volume

1977-04-15; D Greene

1977-04-15; D Greene Attny for Plaintiff to Hon Lasker - Views of Proposed Regulations Ex Order 45- certified 2017-08-09-4 doc 3 National Employment Law Project . 423 West /18th Street New 'lark, N. Y. 1002 7 (212) 866-8591 April 15, 1977 Honorable :tvlorris E. Lasker United States District Judge Sou·thern District of New York United States Courthouse Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Dear Judge Lasker: Re: P~r~y, et al. v. Brenn~n, et al. As an attorney for the plaintiffs in the abovetitled action, I am writing this letter in response to your Honor's recent request for counsels' views on the suggestions of the s·tate defendants contained in their April 7, 1977 letter relating to the proposed regulations implementing Executive Order 45. As we have indicated in letters to Governor Carey and at public hearings on the proposed regulations, plaintiffs believe that 1 on paper, the proposed regulations for State and s·tate-assis·ted construction and non-construction contracts are adequate. However, the sufficiency of the proposed regulations cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the written document. Collateral pract.ical assessments must also be made. In this vein~ it has come to our attention that, to date, no funds have been allocated or budgeted for enforcement of these proposed regulations. Experience has demonstrated that without rigorous enforcement activities and tvatch-dog capabilit.ies even the best of affirmative action plans is virtually worthless. Therefore~ if Executive Order 45 and the proposed regulations are to have any actual, beneficial effec·t on the equal employment opportunities of minorities on State and State-assisted construction, adequate staff and resources must be allocated for vigorous, centralized enforcement ac-tivities. While it is apparent from both the Executive Order and the proposed regulations that enforcement is envisioned, neither are clear, in practical terms, as to how it is to be effectuated. For example, Section 4(c) {ii) of the proposed 0858

1977-04-15; D Greene Attny for Plaintiff to Hon Lasker - Views of Proposed Regulations Ex Order 45- certified 2017-08-09-4 doc 3 Honorable Harris E. Lasker April 15, 1977 Page 2 regulations specifically forbids a contractor to pursue the age-old "contract compliance" game of moving a single minority employee from job site to job site solely for purposes of paper compliance. Without adequate enforcement capabilities this and similar practices canno·t be discovered and ended, mere delegation of the duty for on-site inspection to a contracting sta·te agency is not sufficient to ensure compliance with the terms and intent of the proposed regulations. Similarly, proper allocation must be made for the training of a staff large enough to review both the proposed affirmative action plans of apparent low bidders and the contract recipien·t' s monthly compliance reports t,.,rith skill and sophistication. Thus plaintiffs cannot accept the proposed regulations as fully adequate to ensure equal employment oppor·tuni·ties in the construction trades for minorities in New York City without better provision for enforcement. Second, the State defendants indica·te in their let·ter that procedural modifications to the proposed regulations may be adopted. It would appear ·that the proposed regulations reviewed by plaintiffs and by this Court are not the regulations which are ·to be off .i.cially promulgated. Because plaintiffs have no knowledge of the content of the procedural modifications being considered by defendants nor how such modifications might affect the regulations, they obviously can make no final cornment as to the adequacy of the proposed regulations. Indeed, this Court would appear to be similarly handicapped. For the above reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that an order approving the proposed regulations and dismissing this action not be issued at this time and ·that the State defendants be requested to submit any modified regulations to the plaintiffs' attorneys and to this Court prior to promulgation. Cc Arnold D. Fleischer, Esq. Dennison Young, Jr., Esq. Walter M. Colleran, Esq. Robert G. Benisch, Esq. Robert J. Fink, Esq. Beverly Gross, Esq. Very truly yours, (::

Alternative Employment Practice Percy Program