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
ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3136178, Page4 ong>ofong> 119 ong>ofong> million was diverted as identified herein, obviously exceeding the million that the certain Employers have admitted. Derivative Defendant Oriska Corporation moved to intervene on behalf ong>ofong> the employees ong>ofong> the Employers in November 2020, against the Employers in claiming the million sought by the Complaint filed July 19, 2019 in Nassau County under Index number 609877/2019, uniting in the relief demanded in the July 19, 2019 Complaint reproduced in its entirety at pages 16 through 38 ong>ofong> the Nassau County Amended Complaint in Intervention but demanding that the recovery be paid into trust. The Employers amended their complaint, removing the causes ong>ofong> action and facts setting forth fraud causing million to be diverted by the Defendant Philipson, replaced with a single cause ong>ofong> action for breach ong>ofong> a contract for money lent ong>ofong> ,000, pretending that the million causes ong>ofong> action do not exist, are gone, or evaporated, the same as the security fund identified in the Complaint as the Risk Retention fund in Action in Nassau County Index 609877/2019. It is obvious that the Owner Operator Defendants cannot be trusted to pursue and protect the million or any ong>ofong> the monies identified in this Complaint. Oriska Corporation has been permitted to intervene to prevent a miscarriage ong>ofong> justice by the Owner Operator Defendants by the attempted replacement ong>ofong> the million Risk Retention fund with ,000. The employee Class Plaintiffs are the real party in interest as identified by the Nassau County Supreme ong>Courtong> by order ong>ofong> Honorable Jack L. Libert, dated October 7, 2020 , (ong>Docong>keted at EDNY 20-cv-06291-NGG-CLP, ong>Docong>ument 1, Attachment 2). This Action was then removed to the EDNY and is now ong>Caseong> 20-cv-06291. The Plan assets should have been held for the payment ong>ofong> benefits for employees 2
ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 3136178, Page5 ong>ofong> 119 ong>ofong> the Class Plaintiffs for medical care, lost wages, and expenses. Instead, the Owner Operator Defendants conspired, converted, diverted, and embezzled the funds expensed in Cost Reports and financial reports. Employers accrued and reported benefit expenses to the DOH. Instead ong>ofong> paying the funds to the trust to self-insure or to a commercial carrier, they then paid the funds to operators, managers, and Partiesin-Interest ong>ofong> the enterprise, a racket to embezzle Plan assets that were paid to Employers by Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance and private pay which were supposed to be dedicated by the Plan and Program to provide benefits. GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR REMOVING THE CASES TO THE EDNY The Lower ong>Courtong> found (at p. 20) that: “At the time ong>ofong> removal, the cases remained in the pre-trial stage in Oneida County and had not been returned to their original counties for trial. Thus, the Class Representatives were required to file any notice ong>ofong> removal in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York, where Oneida County is situated.” With respect to the State Nassau County Action 609877/2019, removed ong>Caseong> EDNY 20-cv-06291, Appealong>21ong>-1554: at the time that case was removed to the EDNY on December 29, 2020, it was pending in Nassau County (and not in Oneida County). Although the cases were consolidated in State ong>Courtong> for purposes ong>ofong> discovery in Oneida County, the cases remained pending in their respective counties because, among other reasons, the trials would be conducted in those counties. There is no authority ong>ofong> which counsel is aware to the contrary. All the cases are not venued in the Northern District simply because pre-trial coordination was taking place in Oneida County. Each case should be removed to the respective federal jurisdictionong>ofong> the court in which the trial would ultimately have taken place. Each case belongs in the federal jurisdictionong>ofong> its respective trial court. 3