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 21-1575, 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> 2:20-cv-06291-NGG-SJB ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 47 Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3136178, Page58 12 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 27 119 PageID #: 4347 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

ong>Caseong> 2:20-cv-06291-NGG-SJB ong>Caseong> ong>21ong>-ong>1575ong>, ong>Docong>ument 6, 07/12/20ong>21ong>, 47 Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3136178, Page59 13 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 27 119 PageID #: 4348 All eleven Federal Actions assert identical or substantially similar claims. In sum, each lawsuit focuses on an “Alternative Employment Practice” apprenticeship program that the Class Representatives want covered by workers’ compensation insurance, which they refer to as the “Percy Plan” or “Program” or “Solution.” (See, e.g., Oriska Corp. Gen. Contracting, 20-cv-6131, Compl. 3-5.) This workers’ compensation program appears to have been created by Oriska’s former subsidiary, the Oriska Insurance Company or, at least, is beneficial to it because Oriska is the provider ong>ofong> the program. The Class Representatives claim that the defendants’ failure to adopt the program violated their rights under 18 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1). (Id.) They seek injunctive and declaratory relief; damages for lost wages, benefits, and opportunities; and liquidated damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs, and disbursements. (See id. at 13-14.) HISTORY OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ COUNSEL Kernan’s disciplinary history is also relevant to the procedural and substantive issues before this court. In 2009, Kernan was charged with a fifteen-count federal indictment in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York. At the time, he was the owner and president ong>ofong> Oriska’s subsidiary, Oriska Insurance Company, located in Oriskany, New York. See United States v. Kernan, No. 5:08-CR-61 (FJS), 2009 WL 667432, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2009). The charges concerned Kernan’s participation, along with Robert J. “Skip” Anderson, a three-time convicted felon, in a scheme to defraud several prong>ofong>essional employer organizations (“PEOs”). More specifically, Kernan and Anderson were charged with falsely representing that Oriska Insurance Company was authorized to (1) issue high deductible workers’ compensation 13

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