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.

Views
3 years ago

Percy vs Cuomo EDNY 21-cv-01421 Complaint

  • Text
  • Skilled
  • Defendants
  • Workers
  • Employers
  • Agencies
  • Compensation
  • Oriska
  • Apprenticeship
  • Employment
  • Percy
Private Attorney General Action

Case

Case 1:21-cv-01421 Document 1 Filed 03/17/21 Page 42 of 154 PageID #: 298 Company and Oriska Corporation are sued here as their interests may appear. OIC and OCorp also collectively referred to as “Oriska”. 310. Trust Defendant Rashbi Management, Inc. is the administrator of the Plan Trust known as a NY Regulation 114 Trust as hereinafter identified. Union Defendant 311. Local 1199 is the National Health Care Workers’ Union with a chapter in New York City, a union upon information and belief representing some of the members of the Class Plaintiff. Parties previously named in Case SDNY 73-cv-04279 who are not named here because the Percy Class does not have a controversy with the following former defendants: 312. Eugene Scalia succeeded Peter J. Brennan as the United States Secretary of Labor and, as such, is the chief executive official of the Defendant United States Department of Labor previously named as a Defendant in SDNY 73-cv-04279. 313. United States Department of Labor is the agency of the United States government that is charged with the duty of enforcing EO 11246, and was a party to Case 73-cv-04279. The Department of Labor’s Employment Standards Administration was dissolved. 314. Defendant Craig E. Leen is the Director of the Defendant Office of Federal Contract Compliance ("OFCC") of USDOL succeeding Phillip J. Davis, and OFCC is the Office of the USDOL that has responsibility for enforcing EO 11246. 315. Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, doing business at 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 501-03, New York, NY 10010, is an organization consisting of local affiliates of 15 national and international unions representing working men and women in New York City, previously named as a defendant in SDNY 73-cv-04279. 316. New York Building and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund, referenced in Case 73-cv-04279 as a defendant, is no longer in existence. 317. New York Plan for Training, Inc. a previous Plaintiff in Case 73-cv-04279, is no longer in existence. 318. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People referenced in Case 73- cv-04279 as a Plaintiff, is no longer involved in this controversy. 319. Manuel E. Mejia, now deceased, was a Spanish-surnamed citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of New York. Plaintiff Mejia was a named Plaintiff in the US Southern District of New York Case 73-cv-04279. 42

Case 1:21-cv-01421 Document 1 Filed 03/17/21 Page 43 of 154 PageID #: 299 320. John Mercado, now deceased, was a Spanish-surnamed citizen of the United States and resident of the City of New York. Plaintiff Mercado was a named Plaintiff on the US Southern District of New York Case 73-cv-04279. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 321. A Plan is and was “established or is maintained for the purpose of providing benefits for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise”, the beneficiaries being employee Class Plaintiff, and is governed by ERISA. 322. This lawsuit is about denial of benefits to employees, the Class Plaintiff. The benefits are governed by ERISA. Even though the Employers accrued and expensed funding for the benefits, the funds never made it to trust to be held by the Trustee Plaintiff. The benefits were to improve the skills of members of the Class Plaintiff through apprentice training and continuing education, health, disability, Worker's Compensation, disability benefits, health benefits, as selected by each employer for its Plan, selected from the benefits available under a Program approved by the State in 1994, for the purpose of investing in the welfare of employees of Employers. 323. To provide skills for opportunities, but now even more important for safety of welltrained employees, the persons they work or care for, and the general public, the funding was for the welfare benefit of the employee Class Plaintiff for investment in an improvement of their welfare by investing in the employees. 324. Instead, the Owner Operator Defendants diverted and converted the Plan funding into prohibited transactions with Party-in-Interest Defendants. 325. During the entire period of their Plan, these Owner Operator Defendants and Party-in- Interest Defendants, in collusion with State Officer Defendants, continued to wrongfully diverted funds intended exclusively for their Plan, to other purposes which had no relationship to the Program, although the diversions had personal significance to the Party-in-Interest Defendants who were allowed by the Owner Operator Defendants to divert the Plan assets. Intervention Pg. 9 Par 7. reference to Nassau County Amended Complaint in Intervention 3 . 3 Amended Complaint in Intervention in an intervention by Order of Justice Libert in Nassau County Action Index number 609877/2019,which was not appealed and is final, now removed to related Case 20-cv-06291. To access the document in the link above you may need to register for a Free Pacer Account. https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/pscof/registration.jsf 43

Alternative Employment Practice Percy Program