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 21-1575, Doc 6, Pre-Argument Statement on Appeal 07-12-2021

  • Text
  • Oriska
  • Rehabilitation
  • Nursing
  • Operator
  • Kernan
  • Defendants
  • Intervenor
  • Plaintiff
  • Removal
  • Corporation
  • Appeals
  • Circuit

ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3136178, Page10 ong>ofong> 119 The only disciplinary proceeding that Mr. Kernan has been involved with was his suspension from the practice ong>ofong> law in 2009 and reinstatement in 2015, a proceeding in which Mr. Kernan was represented by attorney Emil Rossi. The matters that the Lower ong>Courtong> must be referring to in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York, in which Mr. Policelli was involved, was a Petition for a Writ ong>ofong> Coram Nobis relating to an application for relief from the conviction under 18 ong>USong>C 1033(e)(1)(B) for permitting an insurance company in 2002 to hire a person with a criminal record while Mr. Kernan was an ong>ofong>ficer ong>ofong> the insurance company. The Coram Nobis petition was denied by Judge Suddaby, and Appeal to the 2nd ong>Circuitong> 19-1256, where Mr. Policelli represented Mr. Kernan, was denied. This was not a disciplinary matter. Judge Scullin, the Judge at the time ong>ofong> change ong>ofong> plea ong>ofong> March 22, 2009, was the Judge who signed the Order re-admitting Mr. Kernan to the roll ong>ofong> attorneys in the Northern District. Unfortunately, administratively under NDNY Rule L.R. 83.4(m) Judge Scullin was not permitted to do that because the Northern District rules were different than the rules in the other districts in the 2nd ong>Circuitong>. Mr. Kernan appealed. Mr. Policelli handled this appeal, and it was not a disciplinary matter. The ong>USong> Department ong>ofong> Justice from Washington advised the 2nd ong>Circuitong> that the NDNY Board ong>ofong> Judges changed rule at Gen. Order 57, 12 N.D.N.Y. L.R. 83.4(m) Dkt. No. 117, permitting Mr. Kernan to make application for admission to the roll ong>ofong> attorneys in the NDNY. When the ong>USong> Attorney reported this rule change, which occurred after Judge Scullin's administrative reversal ong>ofong> his order ong>ofong> admission ong>ofong> Mr. Kernan, the 2nd ong>Circuitong> deemed Mr. Kernan’s appeal moot, Appeal 19-166 Dkt 1ong>21ong>. Oriska Insurance Company is represented in these various matters by Hitzke & Ferran, LLP. The parent Oriska Corporation is represented by Mr. Policelli. Mr. Kernan 8

ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3136178, Page11 ong>ofong> 119 does not represent Oriska Insurance Company or Oriska Corporation, even though the interests ong>ofong> Oriska Insurance Company and Oriska Corporation are aligned in seeking to recover funds to pay benefits to the employee Class. Mr. Kernan’s representation ong>ofong> the Class Representatives ong>ofong> the class ong>ofong> employee beneficiaries does not involve engaging in the business ong>ofong> insurance as defined at 18 ong>USong>C 1033(f). To address the challenging nature ong>ofong> the procedural issues in these cases, assistance was obtained from former federal prosecutor Efraim Savitt, Esq., an experienced litigator in the Eastern District. Mr. Savitt appeared in ong>Caseong> EDNY 20-cv- 06291 on May 25, 20ong>21ong>, Dkt. 46, two days prior to the issuance ong>ofong> the Decision and Order which is now on appeal ong>21ong>-1554. This is brought to the 2 nd ong>Circuitong>’s attention so that the Appellate ong>Courtong> will understand that counsel was acting in good faith and did not intentionally violate the Lower ong>Courtong>’s rules. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS, Sanctions by the Lower ong>Courtong> It is objectively reasonable to consider that venue for trial ong>ofong> lawsuits which were removed to Federal ong>Courtong> were properly placed in the counties where the lawsuits were first filed, especially in light ong>ofong> the venue considerations ong>ofong> convenience ong>ofong> parties and witnesses, as well as in the interest ong>ofong> justice, set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1404. The Lower ong>Courtong> referenced The New York State Litigation Coordination panel order pursuant to the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial ong>Courtong>s § 202.69, but an objective view ong>ofong> that Order does not change the standard that venue was properly placed in the respective counties in which the trial is to occur, and the district encompassing those counties is the proper district for removal. This appeal submits that class counsels’ belief was reasonable under the circumstances and there is no authority to the contrary. All the cases do not belong in the 9

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