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
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>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page88 12 11 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> 11 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2349 1351 most, if not all, ong>ofong> the allegations from the initial complaint. It raises a single cause ong>ofong> action against the Philipsons for breach ong>ofong> contract, alleging that they failed to repay a ,000 loan and seeking only the amount ong>ofong> the loan, plus interest and fees, in damages. (Id. ong>21ong>-25.) On October 7, 2020, Oriska obtained leave to intervene as a plaintiff in the Nassau County Action. (Bay Park Ctr., Order (Dkt. 9-6).) By that time, the Nassau County Action, along with the seventeen other Removed Actions, had been transferred to Oneida County for pre-trial coordination. (Bay Park Ctr., Nassau Cnty. Dkt. (Dkt. 38-2) at ECF p. 3.) Then, on December 28, 2020, Oriska filed an amended complaint in intervention, asserting 20 causes ong>ofong> action against more than 400 defendants-in-intervention, including the Class Representatives and the Healthcare Employers. 2 (Bay Park Ctr., Am. Compl. in Intervention (“Amended Intervention Complaint”) (Dkt. 9-7) ong>21ong>1-343.) On December 29, 2020, the Class Representatives removed the Nassau County Action to this court on the basis ong>ofong> federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., completely preempts the claims raised in the Amended Intervention Complaint. (Bay Park Ctr., Not. ong>ofong> Removal (Dkt. 1) 6.) 2 The proposed amended complaint in intervention asserted only state law causes ong>ofong> action. The parties dispute whether Oriska Corporation ever filed an initial proposed intervention complaint prior to filing its amended one. Because it is not pertinent to the issues at hand, this court declines to address this disputed issue. 11

ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page89 13 12 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> 127 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2350 1352 B. The Federal Actions Also pending are the eleven Federal Actions that were originally filed in federal court. 3 The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions include the same Class Representatives who were added as defendants in each ong>ofong> the Removed Actions and who removed those actions to federal court. Attorney Kernan represents the Class Representatives in both the Federal Actions and the Removed Actions. Kernan, on behalf ong>ofong> the Class Representatives, purports to have named at least 8,773 defendants in the Federal Actions. (See D&D Metal Work Inc., ong>21ong>-cv-ong>21ong>82, Compl. (Dkt. 1) 26 (asserting that there are 8,773 defendants identified in some ong>ofong> the Federal Actions); see also Oriska Corp. Gen. Contracting, 20-cv- 6131, List ong>ofong> Defendants (Dkt. 140) (submitting a 64-page, single-spaced list ong>ofong> defendants).) The court’s ECF filing system caps the number ong>ofong> defendants that may be listed per ECF entry, and in an apparent attempt to evade those limits, Kernan has filed hundreds, if not thousands, ong>ofong> ECF entries, each listing a subset ong>ofong> the defendants. (See, e.g., Percy v. Oriska Corp. Gen. Contracting, 20-cv-6131 (Dkt. Nos. 28-58, 60-62, 64-66, 68, 70-86, 88- 89, 92-93, 97-128, 135-146). None ong>ofong> the complaints explains the individual significance ong>ofong> any ong>ofong> these named defendants or discusses how or why they were identified. 3 See Percy, et al., v. Oriska Corp. Gen. Contracting, et al., 20-cv-06131 (NGG); Hodge, et al. v. All Am. Sch. Bus Corp., et al, ong>21ong>-cv-01366 (NGG); Hodge, et al., v. Cuomo, et al., ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong> (NGG); Percy, et al., v. Children’s Law Ctr., et al., ong>21ong>-cv-0ong>21ong>75 (NGG); Percy, et al., v. D & D Metal Work Inc., et al., ong>21ong>-cv-0ong>21ong>82 (NGG); Percy, et al., v. F & E Maint. Inc., et al., ong>21ong>-cv- 0ong>21ong>94 (NGG); Percy, et al., v. I Grace Co., et al., ong>21ong>-cv-0ong>21ong>98 (NGG); Percy, et al., v. U & I Mech. Corp., ong>21ong>-cv-02283 (NGG); Percy, et al., v. Manhattan Telecomm’s Corp., et al., ong>21ong>-cv-02311 (NGG); Percy, et al., v. S & E Azrlliant PC, et al., ong>21ong>-cv-02313 (NGG); Percy, et al., v. P & H Painting Inc., et al., ong>21ong>- cv-02314 (NGG). 12

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