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, Page8 ong>ofong> 104 4. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in finding that the action EDNY ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>, Appeal No. ong>21ong>- ong>1564ong> was composed in bad faith and dismissed the action EDNY ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong> with prejudice, in relation to enforcing the relief awarded in Percy v. Brennan SDNY 73-cv-04279, which settlement relief was wrecked when Governor’s 1977 Executive Order 45 presented to the SDNY Federal ong>Courtong> to accomplish the settlement was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable by the New York State ong>Courtong> ong>ofong> ong>Appealsong>, Fullilove v Beame 48 NY2d 376 1979 and Fullilove v Carey 48 NY2d 826 1979. 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. 5. Whether the ong>Courtong> erred in determining that attorneys' fees were available without permitting the parties to brief the issue on the merits to have the full understanding ong>ofong> the facts? The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is abuse ong>ofong> discretion. 6. Whether the ong>Courtong>s assessment ong>ofong> attorney's fees was based on an erroneous assessment ong>ofong> an incomplete record without giving the class the opportunity to submit and brief the issues being considered by the Lower ong>Courtong> on the merits. The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is de novo or abuse ong>ofong> discretion. The Class submits that the legal issues are predominate. By: s/_________________________________ James M. Kernan Attorneys for Appellants Donna Hodge, Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams Alexi Arias as the Class Representatives ong>ofong> a Class ong>ofong> Employees ong>ofong> Employer Defendants 26 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10004 Phone:(ong>21ong>2) 697-9084 Fax (ong>21ong>2) 656-1ong>21ong>3 6

ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 1907/12/20ong>21ong>, Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, Page Page9 1 ong>ofong> 27 ong>ofong> PageID 104 #: 2272 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK_____ Percy, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- Oriska General Contracting, et al., Defendants. Hodge, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- All American School Bus Corp., et al., Defendants. Hodge, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- Cuomo, et al., Defendants. Oriska Corporation, Plaintiff, -against- Hodge, et al., Defendants. Oriska Corporation, Plaintiff, -against- Willoughby Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM & ORDER 20-cv-6131 (NGG) 20-cv-6291 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-1366 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-14ong>21ong> (NGG) ong>21ong>-cv-1999 (NGG) (RLM) ong>21ong>-cv-2006 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2009 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2010 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-20ong>21ong> (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2022 (NGG) (ARL) ong>21ong>-cv-2024 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2025 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2029 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2030 (NGG) (AYS) ong>21ong>-cv-2031 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2034 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2035 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2039 (NGG) (RML) ong>21ong>-cv-2040 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2045 (NGG) (VMS) ong>21ong>-cv-2050 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-ong>21ong>75 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-ong>21ong>82 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-ong>21ong>94 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-ong>21ong>98 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2283 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2311 (NGG) (SJB) ong>21ong>-cv-2313 (NGG) (RLM) ong>21ong>-cv-2314 (NGG) (SJB) 1

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