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

Views
6 months 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> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 2307/12/20ong>21ong>, Filed 06/ong>21ong>/ong>21ong> 3135847, Page Page46 11 ong>ofong> 18 ong>ofong> PageID 104 #: 2330 15. Eventually, because ong>ofong> the technical issues with adding parties (the system would not permit us to add parties past a certain amount), I filed multiple additional actions so that all ong>ofong> the parties could be identified and noticed. Again, there was absolutely no intent on my part to unnecessarily burden the ong>Courtong>, and I ong>ofong>fer my apologies for any inconvenience this has caused. My intention was to comply with the directives ong>ofong> the ong>Courtong>’s Operations Manager in filing the various pleadings to accommodate the Multi-District Litigation Panel. 2. MY REPRESENTATION OF THE EMPLOYEE BENEFICIARY CLASS WAS NOT IMPROPER. 16. This ong>Courtong>’s Order to Show Cause stated that I attempted “to represent parties involved in litigation related to the business ong>ofong> insurance for the benefit ong>ofong> Oriska in both the Removed and Federal Actions” in violation ong>ofong> the terms ong>ofong> my “felony conviction and the orders ong>ofong> both the Northern District ong>ofong> New York and the NYSDFS.” Id. at 24. 17. I respectfully submit that my representation ong>ofong> the class ong>ofong> employees did not violate the terms ong>ofong> my felony conviction. 18. Oriska Insurance Company was represented in these various matters by Hitzke & Ferran, LLP. I did not represent Oriska Insurance Company. 19. I understand that, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act ong>ofong> 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 1033(e) (the “Act”), I am prohibited from engaging in the “business ong>ofong> insurance” unless I obtain written consent from an insurance regulatory ong>ofong>ficial. 20. The term “business ong>ofong> insurance” is defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 1033(f) in relevant part as “the writing ong>ofong> insurance” or “the reinsuring ong>ofong> risks” by an “insurer.” An “insurer” is defined as in relevant part as “any entity the business activity ong>ofong> which is the writing ong>ofong> insurance or the reinsuring ong>ofong> risks.” 11

ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 2307/12/20ong>21ong>, Filed 06/ong>21ong>/ong>21ong> 3135847, Page Page47 12 ong>ofong> 18 ong>ofong> PageID 104 #: 2331 ong>21ong>. I did not believe that I had engaged in conduct prohibited by this statute, and I was not working as an “insurer” but only as an attorney. Moreover, my representation ong>ofong> the Class Representatives ong>ofong> the class ong>ofong> employee beneficiaries, did not involve me engaging in the business ong>ofong> insurance. 22. I respectfully submit that my position is supported by an Opinion from the Office ong>ofong> General Counsel. Specifically, in Opinion No. 08-04-30 (Apr. 23, 2008), Office ong>ofong> General Counsel (“OGC”) for the New York State Insurance Department explained that a person with a disqualifying felony conviction may be employed by an unaffiliated law firm that is retained by an insurer to defend its insureds in third-party lawsuits: “The term ‘business ong>ofong> insurance,’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1033(f)(1), includes the writing ong>ofong> insurance or the reinsuring ong>ofong> risks, and all acts necessary or incidental to such writing or reinsuring, which activities affect interstate commerce. The term also includes the activities ong>ofong> persons ‘who act as, or are, ong>ofong>ficers, directors, agents, or employees ong>ofong> insurers or other persons authorized to act on behalf’ ong>ofong> the insurer. Thus, an in-house counsel for an insurer engages in the “business ong>ofong> insurance” by virtue ong>ofong> the attorney’s status as an employee. Accordingly, to hold such a position, the inquirer would have to obtain the requisite waiver. Employment as an attorney at an unaffiliated law firm that is retained by an insurer to defend its insureds in third-party lawsuits, however, is a different matter. The attorney is the employee ong>ofong> the law firm and not, absent other circumstances, a director, ong>ofong>ficer or employee ong>ofong> the insurer. See Opinion ong>ofong> General Counsel No. 02- 07-24 (July 24, 2002) (opining that an employee ong>ofong> a company that provides credit information to insurers for underwriting purposes is not an employee ong>ofong> an insurer). Nor does the position typically involve the writing ong>ofong> insurance or reinsurance ong>ofong> risks, or acts that are necessary or incidental to such writing or reinsuring. See Opinion ong>ofong> Office ong>ofong> General Counsel No. 05-05-16 (May 10, 2005) (opining that a 1033 waiver is required for an adjuster’s license). Further, although the attorney represents the insured in litigation, it is the Department’s view that such representation does not constitute acting as an agent ong>ofong> an insurer or otherwise as a person authorized 12

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