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, Page72 26 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 27 119 PageID #: 4361 2007) (holding that it was objectively unreasonable for the removing party to knowingly disregard the rule ong>ofong> unanimity). The Healthcare Employers were original parties to all eighteen Removed Actions, and the Class Representatives knew or should have known the rules for service via e-filing on existing parties under New York law. Consistent with the holding in Sherman, their attempts to remove these actions without their co-defendants’ consent demonstrates that they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to do so. Further, the apparent coordination and potential misconduct ong>ofong> counsel indicate that removal ong>ofong> all eighteen Removed Actions to this court, rather than to the proper venue in the Northern District ong>ofong> New York, was objectively unreasonable. As explained above, Kernan appears to have violated terms ong>ofong> his conviction by engaging in this insurance-related litigation. And his coordination with Policelli, who was his former lawyer in disciplinary proceedings against him and the who is current lawyer for Oriska, suggests a willful attempt to evade the restriction on Kernan providing legal services to Oriska and to avoid litigation in a federal district where he was disbarred. For the reasons explained above, Kernan’s attempts on behalf ong>ofong> the Class Representatives to remove these actions were objectively unreasonable. The remanding parties are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. If the parties cannot agree on the amount to be reimbursed, the Healthcare Employers and Mr. Lipsius should submit a bill ong>ofong> costs and a fee application to this court. CONCLong>USong>ION For the foregoing reasons, the Removed Actions are REMANDED to New York Supreme ong>Courtong>, Oneida County; the Federal Actions are DISMISSED with prejudice; requests made by counsel in the Removed Actions for attorneys’ fees and costs are GRANTED; 26

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, Page73 27 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 27 119 PageID #: 4362 and Attorney Kernan, counsel for the Class Representatives, is ORDERED to show cause within two weeks ong>ofong> the date ong>ofong> this Order, in writing, as to why he should not be referred to the Disciplinary Committee for this District in connection with his conduct in these matters. The Clerk ong>ofong> ong>Courtong> is respectfully directed to close the cases. 8 SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York May 27, 20ong>21ong> _/s/ Nicholas G. Garaufis_ NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS United States District Judge 8 While the case will otherwise be closed, this court “retains jurisdiction to decide a motion for fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) after it has remanded a case to state court.” Calabro v. Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp., 09-cv-4859 (JG), 2009 WL 4893200 at *3 n.4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2009), citing Bryant v. Britt, 420 F.3d 161, 162 (2d Cir. 2005). It will also retain jurisdiction over Kernan’s submission concerning potential misconduct. 27

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