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, Page14 ong>ofong> 119 4. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in determining whether the actions ong>ofong> counsel for the Class was reasonably objective in determining whether to award attorney's fees and costs. The standard ong>ofong> review is de novo. 5. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in finding that the conduct ong>ofong> counsel for the class warranted an award ong>ofong> attorney's fees and costs, including: (a) whether Counsel for the Class litigated reasonably and in good faith by working with ong>Courtong> staff to upload the names are ong>ofong> potential class member defendants. The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is de novo or abuse ong>ofong> discretion depending on whether the Lower ong>Courtong> deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 6. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in finding that the representationong>ofong> the plaintiff class was improper, and that sanctions were warranted. The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is de novo or abuse ong>ofong> discretion depending on whether the Lower ong>Courtong> deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. 7. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in applying the wrong standard for awarding attorney's fees and costs, including the Lower ong>Courtong>'s findings or conclusions a on mixed questions ong>ofong> law, procedure and fact. The standard ong>ofong> review is de novo as to the Lower ong>Courtong>s conclusions on the application, interpretation and constructionong>ofong> laws in civil cases, including the interpretationong>ofong> federal and state statutes, as well as the lower court's findings and conclusions are on mixed questions ong>ofong> law and fact. 8. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in determining whether the actions ong>ofong> counsel for the Class was reasonably objective in determining whether to award attorney's fees and costs. The standard ong>ofong> review is de novo. 9. Whether the Lower ong>Courtong> erred in finding that the conduct ong>ofong> counsel for the class warranted an award ong>ofong> attorney's fees and costs, including: (a) whether Counsel for the Class litigated reasonably and in good faith by reviewing the dockets in the counties in which the actions were venued and whether Counsel for the Class acted in good faith. The appellate standard ong>ofong> review is de novo or abuse ong>ofong> discretion depending on whether the Lower ong>Courtong> deems the legal or factual issues predominate in its assessment; the Class submits that legal issues predominate such that de novo review applies. By: s/_________________________________ James M. Kernan Attorneys for Appellants Donna Hodge, Annette Hall, Karen Grant Williams Alexi Arias as the Class Representatives ong>ofong> a Class ong>ofong> Employees ong>ofong> Employer Defendants 26 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10004 Phone:(ong>21ong>2) 697-9084 Fax (ong>21ong>2) 656-1ong>21ong>3 12
