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
5 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> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3135847, Page6 ong>ofong> 104 deviate from the traditions ong>ofong> the adversarial system and tend to produce the very effect they seek to avoid, a waste ong>ofong> judicial resources, by leading to appeals and remands. A district court has no authority to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard." Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77 (2018), 2nd ong>Circuitong> 2018. 4

ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3135847, Page7 ong>ofong> 104 5 Appeal No. ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong> Addendum "B" The Class, represented by Donna Hodge, Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams, Alexi Arias, Albert E. Percy, Percy Jobs and Careers Corporation, intends to raise on appeal at least the following issues without prejudice to its right to raise different or additional issues. The Lower ong>Courtong> issued an identical Decision and Order in 34 cases. This pre-ong>Argumentong> ong>Statementong> on Appeal parses the Decision and Order to address only the issues on appeal ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, identified by the Appellant that apply to Hodge, et al., v. Cuomo, et al. ong>Caseong> EDNY ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>, and are applicable to that Lower ong>Courtong> ong>Caseong> in which this ong>Preong>-ong>Argumentong> ong>Statementong> on Appeal is being filed without prejudice to the right to raise different or additional issues and briefs on behalf ong>ofong> the Appellant: 1. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in dismissing the complaint in EDNY ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong> filed in the Eastern District sua sponte without opportunity to be heard; in that sua sponte dismissals without notice and an opportunity to be heard deviate from the traditions ong>ofong> the adversarial system and tend to produce the very effect they seek to avoid, a waste ong>ofong> judicial resources, by leading to appeals and remands. The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is de novo or abuse ong>ofong> discretion depending on whether the Lower ong>Courtong> deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 2. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in finding that the conduct ong>ofong> counsel for the class warranted an award ong>ofong> attorney's fees and costs, including: (a) whether Counsel for the Class litigated reasonably and in good faith. The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is de novo or abuse ong>ofong> discretion depending on whether the Lower ong>Courtong> deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. The standard ong>ofong> review is de novo as to the Lower ong>Courtong>s conclusions on the application, interpretation and construction ong>ofong> laws in civil cases, including the interpretation ong>ofong> federal and state statutes, as well as the lower court's findings and conclusions are on mixed questions ong>ofong> law and fact. 3. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in finding that the representation ong>ofong> the plaintiff class was improper, and that sanctions were warranted. The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is de novo or abuse ong>ofong> discretion depending on whether the Lower ong>Courtong> deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies.

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