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. Who is Al Percy? What is the lawsuit?

A short video follows below. there are also helpful and informative links on this website

1 year ago

US Court of Appeals Second Circuit Case 21-1564, Doc 6, Pre-Argument Statement on Appeal 07-12-2021

  • Text
  • Oriska
  • Plaintiff
  • Kernan
  • Defendants
  • Pageid
  • Removal
  • Corporation
  • Percy
  • Representatives
  • Plaintiffs
  • Appeals
  • Circuit

ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3135847, Page2 ong>ofong> 104 PART B: DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITION (Check as many as apply) 1. Stage ong>ofong> Proceedings 2. Type ong>ofong> Judgment/Order Appealed 3. Relief ✔ ong>Preong>-trial During trial After trial Default judgment ✔ Dismissal/other jurisdiction Dismissal/FRCP 12(b)(1) Dismissal/merit lack ong>ofong> subject matter juris. Judgment / Decision ong>ofong> the ong>Courtong> Dismissal/FRCP 12(b)(6) Summary judgment failure to state a claim Declaratory judgment Dismissal/28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Jury verdict frivolous complaint Judgment NOV Dismissal/28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Directed verdict other dismissal Other (specify): Damages: Sought: $ Granted: $ Denied: $ Injunctions: ong>Preong>liminary Permanent Denied PART C: NATURE OF SUIT (Check as many as apply) 1. Federal Statutes 2. Torts 3. Contracts 4. Prisoner Petitions Antitrust Communications Freedom ong>ofong> Information Act Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Immigration Banks/Banking Copyright Patent Labor Civil Rights Trademark OSHA Commerce Election Securities Energy Soc. Security Tax Commodities Environmental ✔ Other (specify): Admiralty/ Maritime Assault / Defamation FELA Products Liability Other (Specify): Admiralty/ Maritime Arbitration Commercial Employment Insurance Negotiable Instruments Other Specify Civil Rights Habeas Corpus Mandamus Parole Vacate Sentence Other 5. Other Hague Int’l Child Custody Conv. Forfeiture/Penalty Real Property Treaty (specify): Other (specify): 6. General Arbitration Attorney Disqualification Class Action Counsel Fees Shareholder Derivative Transfer 7. Will appeal raise constitutional issue(s)? Yes No Will appeal raise a matter ong>ofong> first impression? Yes No 1. Is any matter relative to this appeal still pending below? Yes, specify: No 2. To your knowledge, is there any case presently pending or about to be brought before this ong>Courtong> or another court or administrative agency which: (A) Arises from substantially the same case or controversy as this appeal? ✔ Yes No (B) Involves an issue that is substantially similar or related to an issue in this appeal? ✔ Yes No If yes, state whether “A,” or “B,” or both are applicable, and provide in the spaces below the following information on the other action(s): ong>Caseong> Name: ong>Docong>ket No. Citation: ong>Courtong> or Agency: See attached schedule ong>ofong> related actions see attached Name ong>ofong> Appellant: Third Party Defendants, Donna Hodge, Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams Alexi Arias, as the Class Representatives ong>ofong> a Class ong>ofong> Employees ong>ofong> Employer Defendants Date: 7/12/20ong>21ong> Signature ong>ofong> Counsel ong>ofong> Record: NOTICE TO COUNSEL Once you have filed your Notice ong>ofong> Appeal with the District ong>Courtong> or the Tax ong>Courtong>, you have only 14 days in which to complete the following important steps: 1. Complete this Civil Appeal ong>Preong>-ong>Argumentong> ong>Statementong> (Form C); serve it upon all parties, and file it with the Clerk ong>ofong> the ong>Secondong> ong>Circuitong> in accordance with LR 25.1. 2. File the ong>Courtong> ong>ofong> ong>Appealsong> Transcript Information/Civil Appeal Form (Form D) with the Clerk ong>ofong> the ong>Secondong> ong>Circuitong> in accordance with LR 25.1. 3. Pay the5 docketing fee to the United States District ong>Courtong> or the 0 docketing fee to the United States Tax ong>Courtong> unless you are authorized to prosecute the appeal without payment. PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN 14 DAYS, YOUR APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED. SEE LOCAL RULE 12.1. FORM C (Rev. December 2016)

ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3135847, Page3 ong>ofong> 104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT (FORM C) FORM C – ADDENDUMS “A” AND “B” ADDENDUM “A”EDNY ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>, Appeal ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong> DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION The Class represented by Donna Hodge, Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams, Alexi Arias, Albert E. Percy, Percy Jobs and Careers Corporation in Appeal ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong> Hodge, et al., v. Cuomo, et al., EDNY ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong> (NGG) was dismissed with prejudice by the Lower ong>Courtong>’s Decision and Order ong>ofong> May 27, 20ong>21ong> 1 . The Complaint in EDNY ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong> Dkt #1 states at paragraph ong>21ong> that “the Class Plaintiff is a class ong>ofong> victims, first looted ong>ofong> their benefits by Owner Operator Defendants who had a fiduciary duty to protect and steward Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) Plan assets; and second, victimized by State Officer Defendants that received Cost Reports but neglected or intentionally ignored and never examined to see if accrued and expensed costs for employee benefits were in fact expended for the benefit ong>ofong> the Class Plaintiff. We now know that the costs reported as expensed for employee benefits, were not used for employee benefits amounting to tens ong>ofong> millions ong>ofong> dollars diverted, converted and embezzled for years while the State Officer Defendants failed to discover this defalcation because ong>ofong> either gross negligence or conscious disregard so that the per bed reimbursement rate remained elevated, even while human resource costs were gutted, the net difference going to the pockets ong>ofong> Party-and-Interest Defendants and 1 The Lower ong>Courtong> issued an identical Decision and Order in 34 cases. the only reference to EDNY ong>21ong>-cv- 014ong>21ong> is in footnote 3 to the decision at page 12, but is nowhere else identified. 1

Tag-along Lawsuits against Putative Class Defendant Members: Decision Appealed, Response and Complaint