Settlement Executive Order 45 (9 NYCRR 3.45) Docket 99 17-2273 Appendix 1, Volume 3 pages 749-757, 758-785, 786, 795

- 

mniteb $tates ~ourt of ~ppeals 

jf or tbe ~econb Qeircuit 

ALBERT E. PERCY; 

P laintif.f-Appe llant, 

JOHN MERCADO; MANUEL MEJIA; 

FIGHT BACK and the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 

THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, 

Plaintiffs, 

-against- 

United States Department of Labor, THOMAS DOWD, Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 

ALEXANDER ACOSTA, United States Secretary of Labor, ANDREW AUERBACH, Office of 

Labor Management Standards, ANDREW MARK CUOMO, Governor of the State ofNew 

York, ROBERTA REARDON, New York State Department of Labor, Building and 

Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, New York State Department of Labor, 

New York Building and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund, 

New York Plan for Training, Inc., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

On Appeal From the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York 

APPENDIX 1, Volume III of III (pp. 608-823) 

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT 

DOCKETED DOCUMENTS IN CASE 73-cv-04279 

CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Barry R. Feerst, Esq. of Counsel 

Kernan Professional Group, LLP 

26 Broadway, 19th Floor, 

New York, New York 10004 

Phone:(212) 986-3196 

Fax (212) 656-1213 

barry@brfesq.com 

Leighton R. Burns, Esq. 

KER~Ac~ AND KERNAN, P.C. 

Attomeysfor Appellant 

14th Floor, Suite 1401 

185 Genesee Street 

Utica, New York 13501-2194 

Phone: (315) 797-8300 

Casey Kyung-Se Lee, Esq., 

Benjamin H. Torrance, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Thomas Dowd, Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs 

Alexander Acosta, United States 

Secretary o.lLabor 

Andrew Auerbach, Office of Labor 

A1anagement Standards 

United States Department o.f Labor 

Defendallt -Appellee 

[COR NTC US Attorney] 

United States Attorney's Office for the 


86 Chambers Street 

New York, NY 10007 

Oren L. Zeve, Esq.,- 

Andrew 1'.1ark Cuomo, Governor of the 

State o.fNew York 

Roberta Reardon, New York State 

Department o.lLabor 

Nevt' York State Department o.lLabor 

Defendant- Appellee 

[COR LD NTC Government] 

New York State Office of the 

Attorney General 

120 Broadway 

Ne\vYork, NY 10271 

Building and Construction Trades Council 

of Greater New York, - 

Building and Construction Trades 

Council ofGreater New York 

Defendant- Appellee 

[NTC -] 

501-03 

Firm: 212-889-4116 

71 West 23rd St. 

Ne\v York, NY 10010

APPENDIX 1 

DOCKETED NATIONAL ARCHIVES CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS 

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Volume I 

Original Docket Percy v Brennan 73-cv-04279 ................. 1 

1973-10-09; Filed complaint & issued summons - 

certified 2017-10-04-1 doc 11 ................................ 5 

1973-10-11; US Marshal, Brennan service of S&C to 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance - 

certified 2017-10-06 doc 25 ................................. 42 

1973-10-26 Filed summons with marshal's return by 

certified mail- certified 2017-07-26 doc 7 ................. 49 

1973-10-29; Filed Amended complaint, 

certified 2017-07-26 doc 6 .................................. 58 

1973-10-30; Filed stip & order extending time of 

defts State of NY to answer 12-15-73 - 


1973-12-10; Filed defts memo in support of motion - 

certified 2017-10-04-6 doc 1 ................................ 99 

1973-12-10; Filed Defts notice of motion to dismiss 

amended complaint- certified 0000-00-00 doc 1 ............. 135 

1973-12-12; Filed pltffs Notice of Motion for 

preliminary injunction- certified 2017-10-04-5 doc 3, 

certified 2017-10-04-4 doc 2 ............................... 139 

1973-12-12; Percy v Brennan, Notice of Motion - 


1973-12-20; Filed stip & order extending defts 

time to answer to 1-30-74 Bauman - 


1974-01-10; Filed pltfs affdvt and notice of motion for 

determination of Class - certified 2017-10-04-6 doc 9 ...... 266 

i

1974-01-10; Filed pltfs memo of law in support of 

motion for a determination of the class - 

certified 2017-10-27 doc 1. ................................ 278 

1974-01-18; Filed defts Bldg & Construction Trades 

Council NOM- certified 2017-10-04-1 doc 5, 

certified 2017 08-08 doc 2 ................................. 291 

Volume II 

1974-01-18; Signed deft's memo in support Motion to 

Dismiss- certified 2017-10-4-6 doc 10 ..................... 292 

1974-01-22; Filed pltff's memo of law 1974-01-17; 

Percy v Brennan-Motion for Consolidation - 


1974-01-22; Filed pltffs memorandum of law in support 

of motion to consolidate - certified 2017-10-04-4 doc 1 .... 308 

1974-01-22; Filed pltffs noitce of motion to 

consolidate motions to dismiss & for partial SJ - 

certified 2017-08-11 doc 4, 2017-10-4-3 doc 5 .............. 315 

1974-01-22; Filed pltffs notice of motion to 

consolidate motions to dismiss & for partial summary - 


1974-01-22; Filed ptffs memo of law in support of 

motion 1974-01-17; Percy v Brennan-Motion-Partial SJcertified 

2017-10-04-3 doc 4 ............................... 327 

1974-01-22; Percy v Brennan - Notice of Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgement - certified 2017-10-04-3 doc 1 ........... 334 

1974-01-25; Filed deft notice of motion The City of NY 

v Diamond- Notice of Motion- certified 2017-10-04-6 

doc 11 ..................................................... 338 

1974-01-25; Filed USA defts MOL in opposition to pltfs 

motions in support of motion to dismiss - 

certified 2017-10-04-1 doc 4 ............................... 345 

1974-01-28; Filed pltff's MOL in opp to State Depts & 

private party defts motions to dismiss,- 

certified 2017-10-04-2 doc 1. .............................. 373 

ii

1974-01-28; Filed pltffs affdt Elizabeth 

Smith-Labor Dept - certified 2017-08-08 doc 4 .............. 396 

1974-01-29; Filed defts affdvt in opp to pltff's 

motion for a determination of the class - 


1974-01-29; Filed Memo in Opp to Plaintiffs Motion 

for a Determ the Class -certified 2017-10-04-6 doc 3 ...... 407 

1974-02-04; Filed pltfs statement pursuant to Rule 9 

in support of motion for summary judgment - 


1974-02-05; Filed pltfs supplemental affdvt - 


1974-02-07; Filed defts counterstatement pursuant to 

Rule 9 (g) Re employment of pltfs - 


1974-02-11; Filed defts counterstatement pursuant to 

Rule 9(g) -certified 2017-07-26 doc 2 ..................... 428 

1974-02-22; Filed affdvt of Dennis R Yeager in opposition - 


1974-02-22; Filed pltffs memorandum of law in oppositioncertified 

2017-10-04-1 doc 9 ............................... 446 

1974-03-28; Filed pltfs first set of interrogatories 

to defts Brennan-USA Dept of Labor - 

certified 2017-10-04-1 doc 1, 2017-10-4-6 doc 4 ............ 558 

1974-03-28; Filed pltfs first set of interrogatories 

to defts Building Const- certified 2017-10-04-1 doc 2, 


1974-04-02; Filed pltfs 1st set interrogatories to 

defts Wilson-Levine and NY St Dept of Labor - 


1974-04-19; Filed pltffs notice of deposition of 

Roger Starr & leila Long- certified 2017-10-04-2 doc 2 .... 586 

iii

1974-05-01; Filed stip and order ajdj deposition of 

Roger Starr etc until May 7-74 Lasker - 


Volume III 

1974-05-13; Filed stip and order extending time for 

defts to answer interrogatories - 


1974-05-24; Filed pltffs notice to take deposition 

of E Lattimer- certified 2017-10-04-2 doc 6 ............... 593 

1974-06-07; Filed stip & order that notice of 

deposition & subpoena ret 5-31-74 is 

adjourned to 6-11-74 - certified 2017-07-26 doc 5 .......... 597 

1974-07-18; Filed Affidavit by Govt. in position to OSC - 


1974-07-18; Filed Order to SC & Affdvt, Filed Memo-End 

on back of OSC filed 7-18-74 It is so Ordered Lasker - 

certified 2017-07-26 doc 10 ................................ 603 

1974-07-22; Filed Notice of Appeal by The NY Bldg & 

Const & of Urban Affairs Fund deft from an Order - 


1974-07-22; Percy v Brennan -Notice of Appeal 2017-10-06 - 


1974-09-05 Filed transcript of record of proceedings 

dated July-17-1974 - certified 2017-07-26 doc 4 ............ 630 

1974-11-08; Filed Memorandum #41415 motion granted 

allowing action to be maintained as a class action - 


1974-11-14; Filed Order to Show Cause by Pltffs 

for an order enjoining defts ... ret 11-20-74- 


1974-11-14; Order To Show Cause by pltffs - 


1974-11-18; Filed Pltffs Notice of Deposition of Claudius 

Johnson- certified 2017-10-06 doc 27 ...................... 686 

iv

1974-11-18; Filed Pltffs Notice of Depositon of 

George Daly- certified 2017-10-06 doc 24 .................. 689 

1974-11-19; Filed Pltffs Ex-Parte Motion for leave to 

communicate- Class Member .. No Date of Ret 

Given-certified 2017-07-25 doc 2 ........................... 692 

1974-11-19; Filed Pltffs MOL in support for an 

order granting Leave to communicate w class members - 


1974-11-22; Filed Order defts USDOL-Brennan-Delury 

& Davis by Lasker are enjoined - 

certified 2017-07-25 doc 3, 2017-8-11 doc 19 ............... 701 

1975-01-06; Filed transcript of record of proceedings 

dated Nov. 21, 1974 - certified 2017-07-25 doc 3 ........... 702 

1975-01-13; Filed Order from USCA (true copy) 

dismissing the appeal by USCA - 


1975-02-24-02-25; Filed Memo & Order proceedings stay 

and motion denied without prejudice - 


1975-03-07; Filed Pltffs Affdvt of Service by 

Dennis R Yeager dated 3-5-75 -certified 2017-10-06 

doc 28 #, certified 2017-07-25 doc 7 ....................... 730 

1975-04-23; Filed Transcript of Record of Proceedings 

dated Feb 28, 1975 - certified 2017-10-25-1 doc 1 .......... 731 

1976-07-14; Filed Order - Order of 2-24-75 is 

amended to the extent that the Court retains 

jurisdiction- certified 2017-07-25 doc 8 .................. 736 

1976-12-15; Filed Order that Order of Feb 24 1975 is 


jurisdiction -certified 2017-07-25 doc 9 ................... 739 

1977-05-04; Filed Duplicate Orig Minute entry - 


v

1977-07-12; Filed Transcript of Record 5-9-77 - 

certified 2017-07-25 doc 12, 2017-10-06 doc 23, 

2017-08-09-3 doc 2, 2017-08-09-4 doc 1-6 ................... 741 

vi

'•'· ···.·.-~.--- 



certified 2017-10-04-2 doc 5 

.... = ... ~ ·:. ·.; 

 

~:::.·::-· :··:. :- :·;.:: _: 

0591



certified 2017-10-04-2 doc 5 

-~~·~ .. 'Jz~~(~:~::·" 

·=::tet~-:: ~----.. -- . ..,.·. · ··· · ·· 

: ... :~ ' .:;:: 

f:~->~~}-~;t.N, 2-:\I..L:"t 1 C:if::~_.:::.~::-:··r~; Il:· :S:. -~·;:::·::::~!.;·;:/. ·· ·:·:·:~:-·:::::- .. 

C


of E Lattimer- certified 2017-10-04-2 doc 6 

IN THE UNITED S'l'A'l'ES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERr; DIS'l'1UCT OF NB\



Mayor-City Administra.t.or pursc1ant to Executive Order 71 (other 

than materials relating to compliance reports or reviews by specific 

contractors). 

(2) One copy of ea.ch contra.ct r·eli9.ting to a construet.ion 

project (as that term is defined :[r: th€ Rules and Hegulations, 

pursuant to Executive Order 71 §§l(a) .~ 

(d) [.Nel'.' York City Record, 

7/14/74]) and the affirmative action program submitted by the 

·· contracto.r. obtaining such contract awarded, let or approved by 

the New York City Housing Authority since July 19, 1973. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NO'l'ICE that, in the event that such 

deposition is not completed on the 31st day of Hay, 1974, such 

·deposition may be continued from day to day until such time as it 

is completed. 

Yours.. S:!S: .• , 

Dated: 

New York, Ne1v York 

~lay 23, 1974 

DENNIS R. YEJI,GER 

ISA.BEI..LB I\ATZ PINZLEH. 

DIANA H. GF.EENE 

423 \'Jest ll8th Street 


TO! 

Paul Curran, United States Attornev 

Att'n: Joel B. Harris, Ass't U.S. 

At.torney 

United States Courthouse 

Foley Square 

New York, New York l0D07 

Louis J. Le.fkowi tz, At.torney 

General of the St,"lt.e of New York 

Att'n: I,loyd G. Milliken, Ass't 

Attornev General 

1'wo World-· Trade Center 

New York, Nevr York 

-2-·



Walter M. Coll"'ran, Esq. 

Dore.n, Colleran, O'Hara, Pollio & Dunne, P.C. 

1140 Avenue of the Americas 

Ne·w- York, New· York 10036 

Robert G. Benisch, Esq. 

Berman, Paley, Goldstein & Berman 

500 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 

Robert J. .l?'ink, Esq. 

French, Fink, Markle & McCallion 

110 East 42nd Street 

New York, New York 10017 

Marshall H. Harris, Esq. 

United States Department of Labor 

14th and Constitution 

V


of E Lattimer - certified 2017-10-04-2 doc 6 

The foregoing Notice of Deposition wa:3 served upon: 

•• Paul Curran, Unit:ed States Attorney 

'•Att'n: Joel B. Harris, J,ss't U.S, 

Attorney 


.. Foley Square 

''New York, Nev< York 10007 

Louis ,J. I.efkOvli tz., Attorney 

General, State of New York 

Att'n~ Lloyd G. Millil~en, Ass't 

,, Attorney General 

•• Th·o World Tra.de Center 

·New York, Nm



adjourned to 6-11-74- certified 2017-07-26 doc 5 

/; 

(/."l5 N:45r~,- j 

·~·· .·; 

IW mffi U'M!~ED B:fJ:J.lES Ff£-lllKtr;'!Z :Cl'W:l: ... 

l'QR THE BOUTID::.tm :DIS'l'PJ/JT 011' Kti?·:.YOl% 

1?}%;(;'!1 ll £1.., 

P1>d.:te.t1.f:t~ , 

Ch;~ Eow.~in~ A\,tthf.•:t"it:;r~ §.i:;i:;($~n~y fQ:C tlw de:pon.en·t lw:t:t>in, th.>t 

t::v~ lroti~~e ot :Dey.:;Jmitit):U ~~a m~'Dpoex1s rwt:tt:r'n:abll!l on tky :a~ 1974-: 

en :Chg~n ~ S'!;l~eial A.!!H~iH-t~mt t-" t.'t-tii 0/:.u:.d:rmlJ.n. 

:gew tvd>::, 1~-0>1 

Jt~nr:' :J l9?~t- 

:to:r:ck 

:SJJVARD V. l!URWN 

l'bn~~ral Co~mm~l t:o thJrn~y to:t> !N::f®:r;iku:-,;\i 

.--"1 

01lD}~!



adjourned to 6-11-74- certified 2017-07-26 doc 5 

·__. / 

:-·:·.:.·:·.:;·:·-·:·:···: 

.............................................................. "...... . ...... ., ........... h(?re1nr by depOSl!.lflti n copy ot tne S;.lme) rncio·se-ci 1n 

postpaid wrapper~in a post office box at 1.50 Broad~Jta~--~in the Borough ol Manhattan.City o{ /Vew York,regularl 

muintr::;ined by the gcn'"€rn.me..nt Ct{ the United States in .soid ci ty,di rected to 1he s:aid. . ............................. , 

---·-· ................................ ., ............., ... ot }Vu"" ...................·.. :........... ·-···············:············ ................ _. ................. ~ in. the Bor·o'J/jh o 

..............................................,City of New York.~be.ing the address vJii:bin the Stdte the_r.:tofore d~signated .oP?... ~ ... 

fot' that pr1rpose~

u:w.rTKD STATES DIS2RICT OOUR'l' 

SO'IJ.J:HERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Plain:tiff'~, 

PLEASE TAKE NOriCE that th~ within is a tn•e 

''Y of .... .,., ................................................................... . 

STIPULATION 

Yours, etc., 

EDWARD W. NORTON 

AttOlYte:y for 

nEW YORK CITY HOUSIHG AUTMDR!TY 

250 Broadway 

rough of Manhattan New 1/oxk, N.Y. WOOl 

.................................................................................. , F~"'l· 

Att

1974-07-18; Filed Affidavit by Govt. in position to OSCcertified 

2017-07-26 doc 9 

:·-. : .. ;·::.:::...:.



~:~ ·:: 

·; :~: ... ··:. t .;::-..-:: ......··. ~-:-::: .. :~:-·.::.::·:- :: :..._,. .. 

. " ~ 

3.' 

·:- . '";:· 

.•:·::. .;:,:·· .: "' 

:.:·3 

}~ -~ :::: .-. s· ·' ::~: -·-: ·. : . . •'• ( 

-.... -~: ·.. 

,• ; -·_; : -~- :; 

·'' :- 

.-:._ .. 

L :L~:· 

:..-· 

:·: :-' .:. .: ~ :'; : :_ ~ ::::: :~:-: ;:, :- -:_:· .. ::~ ··-· ·~-· .•. :-.. -: ·..•;·.-;·::.:.·::.:_:_:;,:;,::.::-=··-:· ....:·:- 

·:· ,n, 

.·,·-- 

·... '· ~-~: 

:':.::;(.--:.--.· t :~ t -~:·::::.::: ·. 

• •... :.= •.• ·-··-: 

:.· .. •.-.:. 

·:: ·:: ~ ~ :-..-:· 

·--·---· 

;:-. :.:: :::.-· .. ·- ·::. :':-' ~ :_ .. 

:·~·:··,. -: < ::= .·: ":' :~. ~-: 

... _.,. _·: 

: .. -.:-::- 

-.. ::.·-:-·· 

-:~ .·:: . -~. ~: ~~- :- ... ::: •· ... -:: .:: .. 

:. -~ : -.:->1 

;: .. ·: :;·'· 

... :::.·:- -:·-.-:"' ·"·:- ·:·:-=. .-.-.. : 

·:: :~. 

·:



r:L::::::: 

. -.:: ::::L 

.:.::-._:-·: .. :.: .. :.--· ... :: :-.. ·. ..· .. :.:;:.:: :::: ~: ;:.: _;;: :·:::::. ::: ... 

=~ ....... :.-::- 

:·;::~; •,.•.•. -.. _.._ ... :: ::~:: .. -::


on back of OSC filed 7-18-7 4 It is so Ordered Lasker - 

certified 2017-07-26 doc 10 

Irl THE UNITED STNPES DIS'EP.ICT COUR'r 

FOR THE SOOTI-IERN DISTRICT OF NEH YORK 

l;Ll3ERT E. PERCY, .JOHN J'lBHCl~DO, HANDEL 

HEJTA, FIGHT BA.CX and 'I'HE NA'I'TONAL 

ASSOCil\'i'ION FOR THE Pill\7ANCEl·1ENT OF 

COLORED PEOPLE, 

Plaintiffs, 

a9ainst 

73 Civ. 4279 (MEL) 

PETER J. BRENNAN, Secretary c)f LabcJr; 

THE UNT'1'ED S'l'A'IES DEPARTc!ENT OF Li\BOR; 

BERN!>d


on back of OSC filed 7-18-741t is so Ordered Laskercertified 


A'l' NEl'l YORK, IN SAJ.D DIS'rRICT, THIS DJW OF JULY, 1974: 

Upon the annexed affi.da.vit. of H. EARL FULLILOVE, 

Chairman of thE; Board of 'I'rustees of the New York Bui ldinq and 

Construction Industry Board of Orban Affairs Fund, sworn to the 

lOth day of July, 1974, and upon the exhibits annexed thereto 

and the pleadings and other documents heretofore f i.led herein, 

and it appearinq therefrom that the United States Department of 

Labor is permitting or about t~o 

perrnit the inclusion, in federally 

assisted construct.ion contract.s let. by the Cit.y of New York, of 

affirmative action hiring rE!guirernents which may bf~, 

to the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards 1 

on appeal 

determined 

to be inconsistent and/or incompatible with the federal minority 

hiring and/or training plan in said area, and it appearing that 

the City of New York is including or about to include in 

assisted constcruction contracts let by it, affirmative action 

hir i.ng requirements which may be, on appeal to t.he Assistant 

Secre·ta-cy fo.r Employment Standards, deterroi.n~:d 

to be i.nconsistent 

and/or incompat~i.ble 

with th'" federal minority hiring and/or 

training plan in said area, and it appearing that such actiDns 

by the DetJar:t.me:-rt of Labor and trw City of New Yor·k will or 

may take place during t.he pendency of the appeal by t.:he New York 

Building and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund 

noticed pursuant to the provisions of 41 CFR Section 60-l.4(b) (2) 

issued by the Department. of Labor, and ~ t furtJwr appeaTing 

that said action of the Department of Labor and the City of New 

York, if pernd tt:ed and allowed to continue or take place 

will cause immediate a.nd irreparable injury, loss and harm to 

the va.rious members of the Ne,,v York Building and Construction 

Industry Board of Drban Affairs Fund, and the industry at large, 

and i·t appearinq ·that such in:iury, los and harm will exceed any 

2. 

0604




injl~ry which roi~Jht be sustnined by Uw Department of Labor or 

tl>e City of New York by the issuance of a stay pending the 

hearing and determination of the aforesaid appeal by the Nev: 

Building and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund 

to the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards, and it 

further appearing that such immediate and irreparable harm may 

take place prior to the return of thi::; order i.f a temporary stay 

of such actions by the Department of Labor and/or The City of 

New York is not ordered pending a hearing on and a determination 

of the within motion; it is therefore 

GJZDERED, that t.he Unit




,, 

/ 

order and the d~:termination by t.h~~ Court cf the within }'ii6tion for 

a stay; and it is further 

ORDERED, 

.•· 

that the Cit.y of New York/ . .i.ts officials, 

agents, servants and all persons acting by,o~ 

through it, be 

and t.hey hereby are tempora:tily stayed .ahd no>st:cained from doing 

or causincj to be done, direct;ly or .i.r1{;:rectly, by a.ay manner or 

means whatsoever ( any act:.•. which v6'sult: in the iaclusion of the 

,/ 

affirmative act.J.on hiring· plar{ of t.hE City of New York in federal 

assisted construction con_tr:facts let. by the City of New i:ork until 

..·· 

the return of this or.~J.

1~74-07-18; Filed Order to SC & Affdvt, Filed Memo-End 

on back of OSC filed 7-18-74It is so Ordered Lasker_ 


UNITED ST,"\TES DISTRICT COURT 

SOfJTH.E.RN D!S'I'J:UC'f.' OF Nmv YOEK 

------·----·---------------------------------X 

ALBERT E. PERCY, e t. a.l. , 

Plair:tiffs, 

-aqainst- 

73 Civ. 4279 (MEL) 

PE'l'Ef{ J , BRENNJI.N, e t a1 , 1 

DefendantE>. 

----------~--------------------------------X 

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al,, 

Plaintiffs, 

-against·- 

73 Civ. 5293 (MEL) 

RENAY T". DIAHOND, et. al., 

Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------- 

ST115'E: OF' NEvi YORI< 

COUNTY OF N.E:Iv YORK ss. : 

X 

H. BARt, FULLILOVE, .being duly sworn, deposes and ;>ays: 

l. I am the Chairman of the Board of Trust~ees of 

the New York Building and Construc-tion Industry Boa.rc1 of Urban 

Affairs Fund (hereinafter •BuA"), one of tho defendants herein, 

and as such I am fully familiar ,~]_ th all of ·tbe fac·ts and circunstances 

hereinafter set forth. 

Thls affidav.i·::. is made ir: support of ·t.he BUA' s 

motion for an order: (a) staying the United St.ates Dr'partment of 

Labor from permitting the City of New York to include its 

affirmative action hir:Lng n;quirements in federally a.ssisted 

construction contracts let by the City during the pendency of 

the BUA' s appeal from the determinatio.n of the Director of the 

Office of Federal Cot1tract Compliance to the: i\:;sistant Secretary 

0607

e' /'J-U'/-1~; ~Filed Order to SC & Affdvt, Filed Memo-End 

on back of OSC fi_led 7-18-74 It is so Ordered Lasker - 


for Employment Standards in accoJ:"dance with thEo provii.ons of 

41 CFR Section 60~1.4(b) {2); and (bl staying the City of New 

York from includir).(,J its affirmative act~i.on 

hiring requirements 

in federally assisted construction contracts let by the City 

unti 1 the aforesaid appeal by the BUA is det




on federa,lly ass.Jsted constnwtion projects< Said amendment, a 

copy of whi.ch i.s annexed hereto as Exhibit "B", was published in 

the F'ederal Register on January 21, 1974 and, by its terms, becam;~ 

eff~~ctive on said dat~




affirmative action hiring plan, On ir:formation and belief 1 

the 

C:i ty' s plan as so Stl.bmitted consists of t;he aforesaid rules and 

regulations promulgated by former Deputy Nayor--City Admini.st.rator 

Edward AJ1orri.son (F;xhibit. "A"), 

7. Subsequen-t to said submittal by t.he City, the 

City extended the period for determination by the D:in,•ctor until 

J·une 24, 1974. On information and b




opportunity is afforded only in connection wi dl. thE; appeal 

It is your deponent's belief, based on the advice 

of counsel and various st:atistical Ln format ion furnished t.o me, 

that upon the hearing on appea.l, testimony, facts vhich time the co!'ltractors and i3ubcontractors on such 

projects will be :c;ubject t.o the minori.ty hiring requirements 

of the City's present plan. 

Should the City's requirements be 

5. 

0611

1~74-07-18; Filed Order to SC & Affdvt, Filed Memo-End 



disa"llowed em appeal or i>houlfJ modified r




assisted contracts ~et 

by it during said appeal period. 

12. Jt should be noted that under the aforesaid 

federal rules, an appE~al 

from thEl Dir("ctor •· s determination must 

be made within 21 days from the publicab.on of such determi.nation 

in the Federal Register. 

The Assistant Secretary must thereafter 

make a final detGrminaticm wi th.Ln 80 days from th€ close of the 

appeal period. 

Thus, any stay ordered by this Court will be 

in effect for a maximum period of 101 days from the aforesaid 

publication of the Director's decision. 

In view of the aforesaid language of the 

federal rules quoted in paragraph 5 hereof and the irreparable 

harm to ths industry "'bich ,,rill b€ occasioned by the DOL's and 

the City's violation of said provision, it is respectfully submitted 

that the within motion for a stay should be granted so 

s to mainta.in t.he "status quo" during the brief period in which 

the industry exercises the administrative remedies provided it 

by the aforesaid federal rules. 

13. Additionally, the DOL has extended until August 

,.197.4, its approval of the"N01.: York Pla.t" (the aff.irm.ati.ve action 

plan in effect on Cit.y contracts prior to the Ci t:y' s promulgation 

of its aforesaid plan on July 21, 1973). 

Such extended approval 

{a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C"), l.n effect, 

makes the "New York Plan" the federally a;_Jproved minori·ty hiring 

pla;: for the Nev-1 York ci·ty area. 

It is, therefore, v/holly inconsistent 

for the DO.L to, on the one hand, permit the City to 

include its plan on all federally assisted contracts let by the 

City vvhile, on the othf,;r hand, approving and extending the" "New 

York Plan" as the federally approved minority hi:rincr plan For the 

New York City area, 

7. 

0613




l.t: is Stlbm1 ttced that, i.n light of this development, 

the granting of the stay rE'quested he:::·ein will afford all 

of the parties an opportunity to discuss the situation and the 

apparent inconsist.cncies t.h.,~rein 

and to hopefully reach some 

resolution of the entire matter through a mutually agreeable 

"hometown plan" or otherwise. 

14. In add.it.ion to the foreC)oinq, the Court should, 

in deciding the within application, take cognizance of the fact 

that the BUA tlas com.."'lleDced an action in the Supreme Cm1rt of the 

~! .... ~- Index No. 21744-1973) fo:r: a judgment. dec1ar.ing the City's 

aforesaid minority hirin




as well as the DOL approval of the City-s plan. 

It is submitted 

that~ ir1 view of this distinct possibj_]_ity~ the st~iY ar)yli~!d for 

herein should be granted in the interesf of sound judi.~ial 

and 

..L~~ ' .. 'rhis mot.ic)n iS brouqht on by order to shO";i cause due 

the imminent nature o·f the aforesaid actions by DOL and the City. 

WHEREFORE, 

it i.s rc;;spectfu.Lly rec:·uested that pending 

the hearing and determination of this motion, tl:E"• Court grant t.he 

relief indicated in the order ·to show cause presented here1vi th, 

and that upon the return thereof the Court mal




~-"'!'"-~ .. :~~::\: ..;..---.-=:- "':-.-...;::;-~ 

__ _.,.___ ---- 

~~~;8V.P.:i"'"!~J:l 

:··::·~.:-~:· ;·· -~'- ~; .- _;~-~1 

. ~ ~ ..... . . .. : .. ....._-· 

":."' ... .:::;;.. ··. ·.·:: __ ">~ 

•• (lo ....... ~.: 

. .- ~ -- -~'? ~-, ... ,J~S~i~~~~/~= 

DEPLTY ;-,a YOR.....:..ClTY AD:\11:'\lSTll.\TOR:~~:,~-.;:.>;-.• ;~ 

~ -. 9 • ·-------...-- • ;· • ~- .r;.· :~":". :..~·;.· ~--.· . • ,~:~ 

Ru1e1t~ R('&ul.,l\rm...._ :\m! Ort!n3 of fht- 1;STI~U U¢ \l!i.:\~ IT!'\' •\!1\11~!1!;,~; 

tr~Q1•·'fv .i -lh:'tc·i~~· ·f1Tl•i$1Ui.H;th~.·.tlw ruh· .... 4 ·'_(1!tlbll••n"';,~~~mt ··"'1''' ".:-·_::~1-- ~~-~~ .. r_l•. fit~:~\'! ;!'_~~·::~~i 

~~>1'' :-- T1u: f.s11n\\IHJ.! ~ q..;ubtinm; riH" Hi'\l' i-1 Sh··h i'!lhl 10'#1.. ;.: •· ' ' .-.~~~- ~- · ~-~ 

Ruk~. RcRuh.\il:;)nllt 4lltl Onft-r: cr t'h(" City -,\,Jn\'iuh~i"·''m'" t 11 t"t~i"'._ttlt!~h-d: r'-lf.-~·'_nli' ~G~~j 

E>lA:>to;;. WL.orher~; rouf-tts-; ornJrn~;utal irvnworkels; 't"Cl1lC1\l m~1:.,.,tni; l:ht.i-t.·nt ph;fi:l·nf.i; 

I 

tc3rr:stc::-s; rao~ic, tik • ..::d terra:z:to \vcrkct!i; tJJpcrs ~ boik·rr:-:~ktrs; z.h,,c!mc-t::al ~·orkt:rs; I· 

bbcr~n.; 1llnnd \;,~crkcrs.; nt:J.:;.:m- he~4ers; t.h.•molitiwl worl;ers; ::1ud doC'kb~_,aoers.. ;I 

e. The tam o'rnir:cri~..r-- inc~t:.d~s Xt:~ro-c.sf Sr:::.n:sh-:=urTtlmro Am'0~ j 

fJith dT0rts m11st be dir-r-cle:tl tu corn·{'t H~'..'h.(.' f,•f ".• ~~-~l ~;:t:;-••-';,';:::::a. OJit ... J:-tum:y. i uf ...:i!.~nt ht 1>n.h~ot1J- ({, .,._tllr.UVl::-.~un.; 

{.l}, uf E:"I.L·\~t.;i-.~ru0-i1·,n trade O




I 

I 

_,. l· 

I 

p . 

• 

. . I 

~- . .:..._~~·-... ":; _1 

1:,\:-:c>E OF ;-,!1:\0ii!T\' ;\1,\:-.r-HOtllt.!. ...::',":J 

l';;>i l'!(ESS"!) .1:-.f PEIWF.NT t\1.1~ TERHS ;;.;·-; :;·'';~1 

· .. · ·: .. cc·,:. (A) Yl•'l !~l · }1'1 Y -~• •. l'>lJ;,:·i:: '.;;.>. 

- .-.-~:.~:· · \1:'-;T!I. JtlNI~ .lO, 197~,:\..:I;·;.f~i 

., . '-·;.' _;: (TI) Tlm!.l JI:I.Y t. 1,74:0:"'~·:· :~D·J 

. :·~·'·'/ ·· \JNTU. JU:-;1,; ;lU, l!l7J>




·-· 

·. 

I ' 

j 

- 3 

... 

·- 

061R




• ' t ... 

/\t .'l mjJ>"tnlulll, nl1 or· t:rf~~rc )Ul1 1. )!ii:t ~···utr.'\,~h~r ..... lo;sU su.1~s: :l ~(·.on tn~IJi9 ("tin(J.tl)l. · 

:rmpl.uy Jnilh>rilv Jc'IUff'il·pnt'll in f'J.-C'h b:Hlhlin;: 3r~t1 ('tJfl.. lr•ltthlTl tr.lt!c m :t.Pt>t-t':-dtrt.1tdy·~ 

th(" :\.lJnC prnportion::tf ~('Jtrc-~-:Hf.fhun ;)' dh'' i'c:n·!ll:Ct;C' ni mtrhJNUt'lo a~a th'." PHi)ul;nion ur·~· 

'ht" nty 1\l i\ir•w '\'mk . .... 

l. "fl•t: con1f.>~ttnl ... h.11i he '\~W~ trhh,faJtHh_ · t:ch·l~ 

w lh:tt }t,H1tiwst :1h1J t'••H'I.frudtt•H U.i•H· ftr :dl uu·,uhc·('

. F"l d Order to SC & Affdvt, Filed Memo-~no 

19::~:~~8~f~~C filed 7-18-74 It is so Ordered Laskercertified 


. ' .- .. .. .. ~ ~. ~ 

M. \\ hl·••L'v~·t thr· l'(JHiJ..u:i'H. 1.;, :1 cnllc('t!~·t'b.u~;:,inins; :ar,:rt'(t!JCH! tu ~~rhcr nrr.tr~d:~ 

ur HJ\,kit~l .. whm: WJih 01 t\IIIHH ur 1\lhtr ~:myfn)'t'«; ur~:tmt;H,Hu_ ,~: :m ~ltf..l-1-l:'Y rd,'rtmi( ~1 

w,.rt:n., ur 3'~q\·s,\w~: uJ 't't'~:H'hutr~ ;;Jlpn'utt' JH\H.·UitV:. Hf J .. •hf«•"!t :t!Tf•t'1inJ! -f,r!HJI(i;mn•·.~: · ~ .. · . · -,· .~i 

S. Tl!t' f,,nh :u:h1r :-h:~n ,uf.,uit. ~~ t·~~:~ r){ the f1r:.t Cpmph:mn• rt·txHi fife(\ (!unns::: \ 

slJL' h'rm t,f llu~ l''~utt ill't~ ur •lnriJt~ tht' JH.·ri~,J uf any cuH!:'~·tivC' b:~t!!~tiniu"' :l.fitr-nt or~~ 

utl1~r ~:tJIItfJ\.'t·ur UDntractor~ -~ 

·• F'aihf.c: ni it:e. :-.uh :;:nd 

~h;lU he (arni:-.h.:d Kich ~ cr't'Y ~~r rhc cktrt




•. 

! d. Fu:~ti~ 1 : ... r.n.·r ... 1'}". ,,n-! '•;-: .. ;~n~ .-!i·ms ~n~t n:mr~tic-~ ~mr~~('d ~bt.~ th~. l}c.~ult-l 

t .\J.I}'Jf .. Cny :\c1!1lllll":t.1t,: ..,;,,,:t; t~· :-uhjn·t 'tn .:•i 1i"";"l witi1if\ hv~ d.•Y" Jv (ltC" H··~rcl uf: 

l 

l~r-"t~m,11,i1i\y ~·f. T!w C1.ty ui' :\t·u· ':•~r~•. Thl"' !kkro:"i~t~'t;~.'n u£ ~ut"h h.o:H'rl .~h-aU. ~~~ 

fin::t.! :wr! t~•j.diP•I'\'f"", ~Hiljr\f (•lJly lfJ $1\t!JU,:l} fC\'IC'W.:-•'..., ,. '. ·. ~ '...... ,"'' • •:_ r ;..!.,: 

!;n·t~un 5.. D~tti"" uf t"ll11lr;$t'liflc -a;:.t·u('1·~ .....-l'\;nuanr. t0 1 ~t't!:ion "S,"' s.ut4lvi~lon·. {:t) 1~ 

nf Fxtnt1ivr O•~lr-r :-;.1, 7j (April!. JT){~o,'"i)!'· · ~--~·:•'! · ":' -~~ . ·· l' ··~ ·"'.· +;~ 

~. ·Ctlll!f;lf·fjH~ :lhl'll("";,., ." conlr;(Ct to .:ln.t bidd¢r o.r ~~ 

p,.!q~p_c;ctj~·-: Cl~Hlr.fi.Ctnr twl:..~-:. th~ b'idrl-c~ or pr~~r>ccti\'~ contr~1ctnr h:-t.o:~p.rior to s.u.c'h ~w>trd.. ;~.' 

~t1hrmt1cd :< 1~n·~r:un r;f .:llHrmatlYC :;.cJJon ~C(I':pt:::d hy the Off'1ce of Cnlltf>i~Ct Comph.:tn:-:~.-~· 

Cnnstradiqu. . . ?-~ 

c. Sklll !Hnv:ird fnrtb ..·ith t"O the om~c of C'ontr;tCt Compii:"tnc-~/Co.nst:·!.!dir.m for ("1):1S.tl'1Jttio;l pr:"•ric!> 0{ ("(JfHfUN~Ct:mf'nt n£ 'I.WH"~ .Or•l~ts f"Qt ' 

. ('nn5-~n.l,·!inn prpj{.·ct::., topir:. Qf «i'llli..::1fimts fr~r ~l'IHov:sl of .;d! -..uhnnJtracfors ior con- 

: ~lTu(tion fii·njt·~·h. ;)aci r}iicaat.s nn their 

~ t"•'Ji:-1ructi•qt JlP1j1.·1·t,. tt, brni.o;h ;\]] inft•rm~11inn 8H'r1!nrnt lo comp.ii::t:1C"C 10 the OJTn;c of 

c~m~r.'lef Cnmp!C.:Jt.n·/Cut~>-lrnrtXm w1 n,.,iltw,t_ · .. ~ 

~r-~·ti-on 'J. ·. Fath of th(' fortf:''iu;;. .'>t'dion:.. nf -;uh,1ivl,io-n$:. lwr,•uf ~h.~n f~ co>nf.rnol" -.: 

1•)1·~· in,('l'I'WivHt ,,f an nth••t !>n:tJou... :t11!} :-u! .. jj,,i'\iOH'\ 1:::lr•'li




,. 

]'·· 

.· 

. 

. 

.::: 

-~ 

1 

·-·~ 

ii1 

l,~ 

. 

]. 

. 

• 

r 

.,_ 

~ 

. 

1-23-74 (CLR) 

CHAPTER 6CJ-.0Ff1CE Of FEDERAL CON 

TRACT COMPliANCE, EQUAl EMPlOY· 

MENT OPFORTUNITY, DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR 

PART Go-1-0BUGATIONS OF 

CONTRACTORS ANO SUBCONTRACTORS 

State ano Local Government Equal Em· 

ployment Opportunity Requirements for 

Federally Assisted Construction Con· 

tracts 

Pursuant to sections 201, 207, 301. and 

30:1 of F~xeeut:ive Order 11246, as 

amended. § 60-1.4 i2>. Section 

ll0-\4ilJI ill and (2) is amended to 

read ~"follows: 

NEWS 

. . . 

FedcniUy assisted construction. 

contracts. ( 1> Except as olherwlse provided, 

each administering agency 

shall • • • 

\2) State and loca1 governments intending 

to impose aftlrmative action hiring 

ami/or training requirements on 

federally assisted eonstruc!.ion aln:ady 

subject to !edenl.l minority hiring and/or 

training pln.ns estnblished pursuant to 

the Order shall submit such requirements 

t.o the Director prior to their indus1ou 

in any Jeisted construction 

contract




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

EMPHWMENr STANDARDS AmvHNfSTRATlON 

Ofticc of Federal Conrract Compliance 

WASH!l\GTON, ]) C. 202!0 

l>1:r. Earl Fullilove 

Board of Urban Affairs 

605 ·rhird Aven:uc 


Dear r.rrr. Fullilove: 

This is to inforrrr you tha·t the U. S. Depart..rnent. 

of Labor has det.ermined to. e.Ktend approval of 

the New York Plan for training as em acceptable 

affirmative action program under E%ecutive 

Order 11246, as amended, .un·t.il l\ugust 1, 1974. 

This extension should allow tLtte for the status 

of litigation pending before


Const & of Urban Affairs Fund deft from an Ordercertified 


·.-. J'·· 

-'.; 

ALBERT E, PERCY, ,JOHN MERCADO, HANUEL Ml.UIA, 

FIGHT BACK and THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 

THE ADVi\NCEr-JEN'r OF COLORED PEOPLE, 

Plaintiffs, 

73 Civ, 4279 

PETKR J. BRENNAN, Secret:ary of Labor; THE UNIT}:D 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; BERNARD DeU!RY, Assistant 

Secret:ary of Labor for Employment Standards; 

PHJLLTP J. DAVIS, Director, Office of Federal Contract: 

Compliance; the OFFICE OF FEDERl\L CONTRACT 

COMPLIANCE; NELSON A. ROCKEfELLER, Governor of the 

Stat:e of Nev.' York; LOUTS ,J. LEVINE, Industrial 

Cormnissioner of the State of New York; THE NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTNENT OF LABOR; and BUILDING AND GON- 

S'rRUCTION TRA.DES COUNCIL OF GREATER NEVi YORK; THE 

NEW YORK BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY BOARD 

OF URBAN AFFAIRS FUND, and NEW YORK PLAN FOR TRAINING, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

~= •u m•m --~ • =-···=-=··-=-=-=====·=· 

=·-= 

TllE. CITY OF NKH YOHK: J"OHN V. LINDSAY, ~1a.yor of the 

City of New· York; ED>.JARD A. HORRTSON, Deputy Hayor 

C:i.ty A.dm:LnistratoY of the City of: New York; HERBERT 

ELTSH, Administrator of the Environmental Protect:Lan 

Administration of the City of Net-1 York, and MARTIN 

LANG, Cornmissi.oner of the Department of ·Hater Resources 

of t:he Environmental Protection Administration 

of tb.E City of New York, 

NOTICE OF 

APPEAL 

Plaintiffs, 73 Civ. 5293 

HENRY L. DI/410ND, Individually and in his offie:ial 

capae:Lt:y


Const & of Urban Affairs Fund deft from an Order_ 


S l R S 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that The New York Building 

and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund, defendant 

above nam•2d, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit, from an Order entered in this proceeding 

on the 18th day of July, 1974. 

Dated: 

Ne"'1York,N.Y. 

July 22, 197!~ 

Yours, etc. 

DORAN, COLLERAN, O'HARA, POLLIO & DUNNE, P. C. 

ll1W Avenue of the Ame.ricas 

New York, N. Y. 10036 

FRENCH, FINK, MARKLE & H.cCALtiON 


New York, N. Y. 10017 

BERJ:v1AN, PALEY, GOLDSTEIN rS!. BERMAN 

.500 Fifth Avenue 


Bv ,_:.)/':


Const & of Urban Affairs Fund deft from an Ordercertified 


HON Li)'Jrc 

"" .. ·.. · ' .~ .., J · LEFKO!.vrrz 

"'!::~u~ of New York .. , Attorney General 

!\.c.,.: I.l.ovc) ~ "'l1·'l 

~ ~' d ~ .nl .... ~"en A 

t.?unse1 for Def~.,. d."·.·'· :.··•, . ssintant Att:or·no· 

11 ·"'.!ants RoC'k f J' · ··~l' 

~-~epa:rtment of 1 eb .. . . .. e .E.. lE't:' Lev' ne· 

'nm \

1974-07-22; Percy v Brennan- Notice of Appeal2017-10-06- 


UNITED STATES 

' . '~ ''· 

l'., .: :



S I R S 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that The New York Building 

and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund, defendant 

above named, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit, from an Order entered in this proceeding 

on the 18th day of July, 1974. 

Dated: New York, N. Y. 

July 22, 1974 

Yours, etc. 

DORAN , COLLER..I\N , 0' tiARA, POLLIO & DUNNE , P . C . • 



FRENCH, FINK, MARKLE & HcCALLION 


New York, N. Y. 10017 

BEID1AN, PALEY, GOLDSTEIN & BERMih~ 



: ./ 

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant New York 

Building and Constructi.on Industry Board of 

Urban Affairs Fund 

TO: 

THE CLERK 

United States District Court 


Foley Square 


RON. PAUL GURRAl'1, United States Attorney 

Att: Steven Glassman, Esq. 

Counsel for Defendants Brennan, U. S. Departme.nt of Labor, 

DeLury, David, and Office of federal Contract Compliance 

United States District Court 



Foley Square, New York, N. Y. 10007



HON. LOUT.S J. LEFKOHT.TZ. Atto~·ney General 

State of Ne~J York 

Att: Lloyd G. Milliken, Assistant: At.torney General 

Counsel for Defendants Rockefeller, Levine, and New York State 

Denartrne:nt of 1Jabor 

Two· World Trade Cente.r 


DENNIS R. YEAGER, ESQ. 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Percy, et al. 

National Employment Law Prc_ject 

lf23 Hesr: 118t.h Street 

Ne1N York, N Y. 10027 

NATHANIEL R. JONES, General Counsel 

Att: William D. Wells, Esq. 

Counsel for NAACP 

1790 Broadway 

Ne'" York, N. Y. 10019 

ADRIAN P. BURKE, ESQ., Corporation Counsel 

Att: Beverly Gross, Esq. 

Counsel for Plaintiffs· The City of New York, et al. 

Law Departn1ent of the City of New York 

Nunicipal Building, RoorrJ 1.6{;0 

N"'" York, N. Y. 10007


dated July-17-1974- certified 2017-07-26 doc 4 

l 

I 

1 hpb:r. 

2 UNITED S'rl\'l'ES DI :3~l'PIC'r COUR'l' 

3 S0U'rHERN DISTRJC'l' OF NEW YOHK 

4 

5 AIJBER'J.' :n~. PF.RCY, et: a1, , 

6 Plaint.:i.ffs r 

7 ·-·a(]a:t.nst.·· 

73 Civ. 4279 

r ,,. 

!, 

r 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

i 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

PE'.PER J. BRRNNAN, SP.cr:ct:ary of 

r,abor, ct al., 

Before: 

De fc.ndanb3 . 

RON.. f.-10HHIS E. U\.SKER, 

Dist:r.ict. Judge 

New York, ~fuly 17, 19711 

4:50 p .. m. 

BEIUIIAN 1 

P/\J,EY, co:r.1DS'rEIN r. BEl:.:r.olAN, Esqs,, 

Attorneys for Board of Urban Aff~irs, 

By: Hobert. G. Be.n.i.;;ch, Esq. , of Couns\:Ol 

and 

FRENCH, FINI\ r MARKLE ~< McCALLION, Es qs. , 

Co-Counsol for Board of UJ~ban I>.ffairs, 

3y: Robert J. FJnk, Esq., of Counoel 

i.\DHIA.N P. BUl'U\E, :81,:q. , 

Corporation Counsel 

Ci t.y of NG'!/ ·zork, 

By: Thomas F. T1·imbol.i., E:Jq., 

AElH :i.o ta.nt. Cm:·pora t.ionCounse 1 and 

Baverly Gro;;s, Esq., 

ARs1stan~ Cor2or3~ion Couns~l. 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUARE, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7-4580 

0630



1 

hpbr 

2 

2 

3 

APPEl\Ri\NCES 

(Continued) 

4 LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ, Esq., 

~ttorney General, 

5 State of New York, 

By: Lloyd G. Miller, Esq., 

6 ~ssistant Attorney General 

7 

8 

10 

11 

PAUL ,J. CURRAN, ,JR. , Esq., 

Unit.ed St.ates At:torney, 

Southern District of New York, 

By: Steven Glassman, ~sq., 

Assistant United States Attorney 

DIANA ll. GREENE, Esq., 

Staff Attorney, 

National Employment Law Project, Inc. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

TIIE COURT: 

This is a return on an order to 

W 

TI 

W 

show cause for what is described in the moving papers as a 

temporary stay and restraint, but which in my view, since 

if it were to be effective will have to stay in effect 

19 for more than ten days or even more than twenty days and 

20 should be regarded under the Civil Rules of Procedure as 

21 being an application for a temporary restraining order to 

22 

be succeeded by a preliminary injunction since Rule 65 

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure>;, limits the 

24 aut.hority of a District Court to grant a temporary restraining 

order for more than ten days, renewable for more 

0631



1 

2 

hpbr 

than ten days, I therefore am vimvinq t.he matt.cr as 

3 

3 

a motion for preliminary injunct.ion. 

The applicat.ion 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 


18 

19 

seeks to restrain the Department of Labor of the United 

States and the City of New York, pending an appeal by 

the applicant, to the Assistant Secretary of Labor from 

a determination of the director of Office of Federal 

Compliance, from permitting the inclusion of or including, 

as t.he case rnay m, the NC\v York City a flirmati ve. action 

hiring plan in federally assisted construction contracts 

led by the city. And, it seeks to n?st.rain the city from 

doing anything which might result in the inclusion of the 

affirmative action hiring plan in federally assisted 

construction cont.ract.s let_ by t.he ci t.y unt.i l the determination 

of this motion which will be determined today. 

There is no doubt that the moving party has a 

right to appeal to the Assistant Secretary from the 

determination of the director of Office. of Federal Compliance 

and inde.cd I 

understand that the. appeal has 

20 

actually been fil~d, 

is that correct, Mr. Dcnisch? 

I~-- 

21 

22 

23 

?A 

25 

I'-"lH. BENISCH: That is correct, sir. 

'I'HE COUH'I': The applicant or movant for this 

restraining order or injunction, is the New York Building 

and Construction Industry Board of Urban Affairs Fund, which 

I will probably refer to in my remarks as the Board of 

063



1 

2 

3 

4 

hpbr 4 

Urban Affairs. The Board of Urban Affairs asserts that 

Exe.cuti vc Order 71 of the City of New Yorl< or the rules 

and regulations issued pursuant thereto, all of which for 

5 

purposes of convenience I 

will describe as the Mayor's 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Plan, may not go into effect until and unless the appeal 

of the Board of Urban Affairs to the Assistant Secretary 

of Labor is finally determined in favor of the city or 

adversely to the board, whichever wav one looks at it. 

'l'he 1\ssist:a.nt Secre.tary of Labor I have n:ferred to is the 

11 Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards. 

12 

This view is disputed, as I 

understand it, by 

13 

14 

t.he Unit.e.d States Govcrnmr:.nt which is a party t.o the 

litigation complex with which we are dealing and which 

15 

I 

\vill describe in more detail in a momGnt. 

16 

As I 

understand the federal government's position, 


it believes that the federal rules and regulations in 

18 quest:ion, namely, of 41 CfH, Section 60-1.4 (b) (2) 

19 do not apply in the. sit.uat.ion at: hand, because i-vhat. oc- 

20 curred herctofors did not constitute an affirmative approval 

21 

22 

by the director of Federal compliance but rather failure 

to act. \vhich, by dufaul t. 

per:mi tt.cd the nayor' s P lar. t.o go 

23 

:i.nt.o effect. 

I am not persuaded of t.he correctness of 

the federal government's position on this point and I 

am 

25 

act.inq on the assumpt~ on that the movant. here, the 

063



1 

hpbr 5 

2 Board of Urban Affairs, has had a right to appeal from the 

3 determination of the director of Office of Federal 

4 Compliance, but I do not find such a determination to be 

5 necessary to my rtccision and I do not make any determination 

6 on the. question. I do not cbnstruc the provisions 

7 of Scdion 60-l.4(b)(2) to provide an aut.omatic st.ay, hm·J



1 

hpbr 

6 

2 

3 

!USS GHOSS: 

THE COURT: 

That.is correct. 

In addition there is pending before 

4 

me a suit brouqht. by p:r.ivat.c individuals aqainst the 

5 Secretary of Labor and other persons including the moving 

6 party, the Board of Urban Affairs known as Percy against 

7 Brennan, 73 Civil 4279. Thera is pending before me 

8 a motion ~o consolidate these cases, which has not yet been 

9 determined, but which I will state to the extent that it is 

W 

relevant to the issue before me, I believe may have con- 

11 siderable merri~. 

12 I mention these facts because they are relevant 

G 

M 

to the question of whether the moving party in the case at 

hand, namely, the Percy case, has standing to request 

15 relief against the City of New York, which is not a party to 

W the Percy case. I have concluded that the Court should 

U 

not issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining 

18 order for t:.hc. foJ.lowin9 reasons: In spii:l'! of the letter 

19 of the Boa::·d of Urban Affairs' counsel, dated ,July 16, 19 74, 

~ which appears to construe the situation to be such that it 

21 is not necessary for the Board of Urban Affairs as the moving 

22 

party to moke a showing of ir~eparablc 

harm or its 

23 

equivalent, I believe. that it. is necessary for the Board 

24 of Urban Affairs as the moving party in ·this case t-.o make sue 

25 a showing. I do no·t bc:li.evc t.hat it l1a~~ "".uac~'~' such a sllo'·';n 

-- .1'-' -- . '"'.L. g. 

(",-..I l''f" I'~-



1 

hpbr 7 

2 I find that then: Hill lxo: no damage. to t.he Board of Urban 

3 Affairs or assuming that it has standing to represent the 

4 construction companies and the unions which are among its 

5 members, n:J damage to Bny of them, as to whet.he.r members 

6 of the min?rity groups of our society are required to be 

7 hired rath.::r than \vhi tc: members. Nor do I f.:i.nd that the 

8 Board of U ,·ban .l'f:fairs has standi.nq to alleqc': t.hat uncmploy- 

9 ment of whites, which has been suggested as an equitable 

W 

consideration for the Court to bear in mind in reaching 

11 its conclusioh, is a consideration. This is a corollary 

12 of what. I have just said, that vJhet;her whit.es or 

13 non-whites are hired to do the jobs which will be covered 

M 

by these public operations, carried on by the city but 

15 funded by them, t:he state and the federal government, doe.s no 

W 

constitute any damage to the moving party. 

17 Of course, as far as the Court is concerned, 

18 it is colm~blind t.o the quest.ion of vlho would be. working 

W 

on the project. 

20 I do fj nd, on t.he ot.her hand, that there e.xists 

21 at the pre.~ent time, vis-a-vis the plaintiffs in the Percy 

~ case, which is the actual casn before me, Q real and actual 

23 injury, whr!reas whether such injury as may actually occur 

24 v.:i.s-a-vis t~hc. Board of Urban Affairs or its const-H-.uent: 

~ organizations, is speculative in ~he sense that it assumes 

063



1 

hpbr 8 

2 that various actions will occur on the part of the federal 

3 . 

government and/or the part of the City government wh~ch 

4 may indeed never occur and in any event, it appears to me 

5 that the Board of Urban Affairs or its constituent agencies 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

have it within their own power to comply with whatever 

regulations of any level of government happened to be in 

existence at the time in que~tion. 

Furthermore, there is a serious question in my 

mind, as I implied by describing the difference between the 

11 

Percy and the city case, whether the Board of Urban Affairs 

' < ..., ...... ·' 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 


18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

has standing as a party in the Percy case only to move for 

an injunction, at least against the city, which is not a 

party to the Percy case. It is true that, as I said earlier 

in these remarks, a motion to consolida'te two cases is 

pending before me and I indicated that for the purposes of 

discussion this afternoon, I believe there may be considerable 

merit to such a motion. 

However, it does not seem to me that even if the 

cases were consolidated that would necessarily or actually 

confer standing on a party in one of the cases vis-a-vis a 

party in the others. 

It seems to me that the sole effect of the consolidation 

would be to constitute a procedural convenience for 

discovery and trial but could not convert the parties in one 

06 7



1 

hpbr 9 

2 case as adveraries to or co-parties in the other case. 

3 Next, I find that the defendant has not establish 

4 by the pleadings or otherwise, that it has standing to repre- 

5 sent the contractors who are alleged to be injured and finall 

6 and certainly of considerable importance if not vital impor- 

7 tance, I find that the moving party has not made a showing of 

8 probability of success as to the merits in the case. The 

9 merits in the case do not have to do with whether it will 

10 prevail on appeal to the Assistant Secretary of Labor or not 

11 but whether the defendant will prove in the case pending 

l2 

before us any inconsistence between the presently standing 

13 federal regulations and the Mayor's Plan. 

14 

Without ruling on the merits of that question 

15 which of course I intend to do very soon on the basis of the 

16 various other motions in this case which are pending before 

17 me, I do conclude that on the present state of the record 

18 as contained in the papers on this motion before me, 

19 there is no showing, certainly not a requisite showing of 

20 the probability of success by the moving party on that 

21 question. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

hpbr 

something on this motion and that the result might have 

been somewhat more refined than my verbal statement, but 

that I understand this is a question of urgency for the 

10 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

parties, and I feel that decksion should be made as quickly 

as possible, to say nothing of the fact a number of other 

matters are pending before me and I might be precluded from 

doing it as early as I would like to otherwise. 

Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

11 

THE COURT: 

I will, however, modify my ruling 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 


by temporarily restraining the federal government and the 

city in the terms requested in the order to show cause 

until 5 o•clock, Monday, July 22nd, for the purpose of 

permitting the Board of Urban affairs to apply for_a stay 

or restraining order from the Court of Appeals. 

(Time noted: 5:15p.m.} 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

063




tn·-~J·:~·t:;;~_: ::.~r.:~~\.fT.~~S .J)Ir.:·.L'l-1IC~'I C~C\tJI~.T· 

~~}CJCJ·~:_:;_-_i_;_;~r·.l'-; l}IS-~rr-~~IC~;f C~l~ :·~E\:/ YC;f{K 

- - - - - - - -X 

~\I~.i::.F:;_~~'? ~ •. -:: f;T:"I=z~~y· r IJ()f-I~·J iv1£l~(~_r:,D() i rvt!\l~"CJr~I; 

:>~~>::~,x r.< .. ( ·:- -~----~_:·u.'r I~2\C-.c~ .-:~_nc1 tl·J·:::; J:,J.X:,1'.T()t-J.Z\.L 

l~~-3~-)C,::~~~LJ:. r'T::_:;:~ J?C?J< ~C'll.C .~\.TTVl:.:.:ct~l-2~1-~'J: C)J? 

C~C>~:--.-- r:·· :1~: ~~,(-_?I?"I,;: ~ 

r.: .:-:~; ~L;F: r ,:_r ., I~? :E~1:J1~: 7-\ff r S:?~ c ret c~. y:y c~ r: ~La f) C) ·r- ; 

'.fL.}~ u·f.-·l I ·:~:·Ti.i) S'IArr E~S DEP t'~r::lt;~~IF~1:~'T C'JJ:, Ll: .. B()f.~; 

:;;r:~.R~:;z-~~r:.~_-} ~~-:




' .. 

.. 

LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. 

Attorney General, State of New York 

Two World Trade Center 


Attorney for Defendants 

·LLOYD G. MILLIKEN, ESQ. 

Assistant Attorney General 

WAJ~T8H. H. COLLEl:\AN, ESQ. 

DOF:AfJ r c:




LASIGm, D. J. 

This case, brought on behalf of minority persoLs 

seeking training and employmen-t in thE N'"'"'' York ccmstruc-- 

tion industry, challenges the affirmative action plan, 

{"tLe Nev.J ~t'ork Plan") ·v.rhich cnrren tly qoverns Ff~der;.:d_ ar:d 

State assisted ~onstruction 

projects in New York City. 

York Plan fails to guarantee equal protection and the 

ri~:rht 

to equal employment opportunities as required by 

the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1981 and Executive 

Order No. 11246. 

At issue also is the validity of 

federal and state attempts to pre-empt local government 

efforts to impose affirmative action requirements which 

are more rigorous than those contained in the New York 

Plan, althm;gh our d.ed sian in ~it_}:__~!~- D~~~~ond, 379 F. 

S.D.N.Y. 

Su.j_::p. 503 (/.L974) has at least pari:i.al1y disposed of this 

aspect of the case. 

The plaintiffs are Albert Percy, Manuel R. Mejia, 

and J-ohn Mercado, who move to represent a class of fellol'l 

black and Spanish-surnamed individuals seeking employment 

in the construction industry, and two organizations, 

Fight Back and National Association for thE; Advancement 

of Colored People (NAACP) . 

Defendants are the Secretary 

of Labor, the United States Department of Labor, the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards, 

l. 

0642




the Directol:' of t:he Office c.f Federal Contract Co;npliance, 

and. the Office of Federal Contract~ 

CompLiance, 

Yo:r:J




A. Flc,CTS 

The New York Plan was established in 1970 to combr:oad 

erj:.J.al eTHJ?1C)YD1~r·:t. 

oJJlig·a .. t:.icJns 011 f·s:dfJJ:aJ. a.n.c.l ft~:c1c::c-· 

Part I 

of the order requires 

that federally-fund~C::d 

contJ:;;;cts include i:l'F:; provi~>ion 

that: 

"rl•}Le cont-.ra.ctc,r \·.:rl.l1 r.:.c\·t dis"'-" 

c:ci.Jn.i.nai:'2 clsJaiilst.




contained 1n Parts II illld III . 

. rooter of the Off :i.e:::: of FedercJ J CoJ;trzcct Cornpl.i anc~c:, is 

of the Secretary of Labor. 

Secretary of Labor, 33 Fed. Reg. 2600 (Sept. 4, J968) .) 

Compliance with the order is obtained througt adhsrence 

An imposed plan., as t.he na.rne i.ndicat:es, it:: a p1al: 

which is imposed by the Secretary of Labor, establishing 

with increasing minority participation each year. 

Eesponsibi1 

i ty for compltancc .rests Hi th indi "1;-:i duc:tJ. contrc.G·tors. 

l\. hometmvn plan typicc.lly combines t.he efforts o£ local 

contractors and contractors' associations, building 

in the fo:t·rnulaticn of. a plan for vo1unt:ary compliance \>lith 

tlw order. 

obligations fall on the trade as a whole rather than on 

any individual contractor, and can be satisfied by minority 

employment or training on any work performed by the trade, 

whe·ther federally- funded or private. The borneto-vm plan 

approach holds the unions rather than the individual 

cont.ractors responsible for complying with the a.££irmative 

action requirements. 

An administrative corr®ittee assigns 

4. 

0645




Hf.::tir s1la~-e go.::.?.lsn t.c: i11di\;id1J.Dl cz)nt:ra·::.::.to1~·s~ J\ h()ITK.:·to\.·.'n 

Bid Conditions (Federal Bid Conditions) used 

jects in the geogra 

cal area of the hometown plan. 

J?o~r· o.n.y t.:r-ade.s net: iJ(.1=tt.ir::i};:·ati.n.~; .:L11 t.hc hon1et.c\-·tn 

plan, mandatory affirmative action requirements are set 

forth in Part II of the Federal Bid Conditions. 

directly on the individual contractor, rather than on the 

non-particjpating trad~ 

as a whole. 

Part IV of the Federal Bid Conditions provides 

that tbe faj_Iure of a cvntrac to;~ 

-to kdke good faith 

efforts t_c) meet his fa:Lr shr:n:c-: c:bli~rati_ons under "-' home·- 

town pJan can result: in his being placed under Part II 

of the conditions, as well as possible imposition of the 

sanctions authorized by Section 209 of Executive Order 

No. 11246. 

The federally approved hometown plan in New York 

City, which is challenged heye, is the New York Plan. 

It 

was submi tt_ed -to the federal government for approval in 

1970 by the Board of Urban Affairs, an entity created 

by the New York Building and Construction Trades Council, 

0646




associations (the Building Trades 

lcye£s Association 

a Tld ·tl1 e C~er1.e :c a_l C o.n.t:r~ a.c:t ors 1\~~ ~:(::··-:; i . .:~ t:. :i c;n) ~ 1 1 h-t~ lJc~-: .....r ~los~}~· 

Plan became effective after approval resp2ctively by the 

Mayor (Executive Order t3l), ths Governor (Executive 

Order 143) and, in August 1971, 

the Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance. 

The Plan has been extended from tins 

to time and is presently scheduled to expire at the end 

of December, 1974. 

be set: at. 800 maximum." (Plan, }\:ct.ic1e IV, of §2) 

were established on a craft-to-craft basis. and qualified 

gradua~?s of the 2~ogram W~£e t~ be reco~nended to 

tY1e approJ~l-:iate UJ1ic)11 ~ 1 f():c C()!Jsidf.:.·cat:.ic:n fc~L~ n~eJnb(:?:cshi_p .. :': 

(Plan, Article II, §2). 

The Plan expired by its terms on July 1, 1972, 

but, as indica·ted aLready, it has been extended from tin;e 

to time. 

The extended plan diffe;:s f:r:mn the original 

in providing for the training of 1,000 rather than 800 

2/ 

minority workers. - 

B. MOTIONS TO DISJ:HSS 

The grounds of the motions to dismiss include: 

(1) the federal defendants• claim that the plaintiffs 

6. 

0647




(2) the state and private defend2nts' claim that the 

plaintiffs have failed to exha8st federal, state and city 

c:ts EiE~~c-t. ic;x~:. t.h at: L.1-Jc ir1cli 'f j_6l1-~~ 1 IJ J a _·I 11 i:.: j_ f f s 1 ·dC }(. stand insJ ; 

that. the Stc:cte Dep.::;rtment. of La.boT J.C:> 

i.ro:rnunc from su.'t.t,: 

and (6) their assertion that the complaint fails to state 

3/ 

.c: ..... : '"j ~ ~ - •• -'- 

-!.,.




2000 8 -3, which de 

do not include the promulgation of an unconstitutional 

~ffirrna~ive 

action pl~n. 

suppo~t ~heir claim, for while the court in Hadnott v. 

Laird, 463 F.2d 304, 305 (D.C. Cir. 1972) dismi3sed the 

complaint for the plaintiffs' failure to appear first 

.,.. . .., 

'~l:/SrE: ICl.l.L t~c~ fu.1f i .L .l t.l1e i .r cc~n. t:.r: a.ci.-:.1J.a 1 cornrn.i. t -~ 

discriminat21 on the b~3is 

of r~~e. 

plaintiffs note, the complaint is not one under Title VII; 

pl.air.t'ciffs .be-:rc a.:ce r1ot asl~_:Lng t~hat t:}i(~ san.ctior1s of Ex-.. 

ecutive Ordc.:r· No. 11246 be irnposed upon third p




rector of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. 

Regulations promulgated by the Office give the Director 

but however broad the scope of those regulations, a 

complainant may only chalJ. er;ge the a1lrc';ged dJ..:::: cr iininat:j_o,..· 

o.f· a "pr.imc contr:a.ctoT or svbcont:ractor" 1 

s;L 2 3 

(a)), not the unconstitution~lity 

of the contract's 

equal P~plovment oppor~unity clause itself. 

2. Exhaustion of Federal Administrative 

Ren1edies Ur1der tl8 tJ .. S~C .. §l98l~ 

... 

-- -·---~-·-.__-------__.., 

-.... ~,...--.-- 

The state defendants also assert that plaintiffs 

have adequate remed:i.es under federal st.atutes. 

As noted above, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, does not prohibit discriminatory acts by 

government officials except where the government is the 

employer. 

Nor does it proscribe tbe activities of govern·- 

ment officials or private entities which operate to foster 

discrbnination by employers or unions. 

9 . 

0650




pria~P, 

Congress specifically rejected the proposition 

§ J. 9 D l ... 'Tt.e I-Ic-1.J.E;e:; .a.rJ.d. Sell.Ctt.:e ContTlti t~t::.=.:f:.:::s t.hat J: .. et:>or·t .. e.{_1 ·t:l'J




s ce y ()\Ttl




1527 (2d Cir. October 11, 1974) 

v. Doard of Education, 373 U.S. 6G8 (1963). As the Eisen 

inadequate ... or where it is certainly or probably 

r~~2d z~t 569., 

futile." 421/ The case at hand supports this position 

dictated an adverse outcome. 

Here the administrative 

rerneCt;{ (locs not e\ren exi~:;t: as t.r) tl1e sut~j::~c:·t: n1a.tte.1:· in 

lack standing to seek relief for the class they represent 

because the claim of discrimination alleged here is not 

properly directed against them, but iather is, or should 

be, lodged against th




lfrrl-112 i.rlt:;_}-;.i.] ity ()~f tlle r;1oi.~:tiffs 

and the class represent to oL- 

->cain. E-::::m.ploJ.,.rn,:?n.t c:::i~ t::co:~l.n.l:ng j_;:; tJ·~e 

direct result of employment pract. 

i CZ.:-': ;:~ ():f C C) I-~::. t Y'\5. c: t: i ()J1 j_l·~- -d.:._·:::~ t r·~::~- 

11.n i_c,_n s a.n.d 

... yc,:c}~ t..--: j_ ty a.Yc:~.?:~. \\/11 i.c:J-:1 c1.l.z~, c:cirnin,~ ·::~ c 

age: i11st JJlacJ-:.:. a.n.(~_ Sp~:-~n ·j_ s}:l··· s u.rndJ-:Jcd 

frE:rs•.)rls. ~) ( '11 24) 

against minority persons in no way precludes the 2xist~nce 

othc:r.s, 

To establish standing a party must allege 

a personal stake in the outcome of the ~ont~oversv a~ to 

presen~~tion 

of issues nron which the court so larg2 

construction workers who allegedly c:.nd 

' ' 

cc.::nL~.nue 

to be denied en~loyment 

in the New York construction 

industry, the individual plaintiffs have initially demonstrated 

"a personal stake". 

The existence of standing depends first on 

"whe·ther the plai ntif:f alleges ·that. the chc:t1.lenged a.ction 

has caused him injury in fac·t, economic or ot~herw.i.se", 

As soc ia.t.ion 397 t.J .. S~ 

13, 

0654




150, .152 (1970) 1 

and second on whether tbe plaintiffs 

are "~·ri.thin t.hc: cla::::~; o.f per.'::;o:ns i:::hat the: ·-·- provi::;ion[s} 

397 lJ .. S .. at 1!:)5 .. 

fondants assert, the denial of job opportunities alone, 

"the right not to be subjected to racial discrimination 

cb.a. ::~ge~d. -;.vi t.h_ e:~n fc:;rcen\::::r.j.t_ of Ex(~.c ui::.i-..:e Or de: r t-Jo ~ 11_ 2 4 fr; if 

th,::ey have, by a.pp:roval of t.b:::.~ New Yor}t Plan 1 

failed to enfo.tce 

tion~ 

of the construction industry and has inflicted an 

injm~y 1 :\pon plc""tintiffs. Nor:J;c:iJk C. U. H. E. , .. l"~or'i·J




The private defendants challenge the standing o~ 

u.s. 415, 

301 F. Supp. 1:346, l34tj (E.D.N.Y. 1969). 

an organization of black and Hispanic construction workers 

'v!hich devotes the rnajor:Lt}'' of it':> ef:fort.s to obta:~ning 

which seeks t.o protect the c.ivi1 .?~i,;hts 

of black r:;c,o'c-sons. 

{AmendE"d Cor:1pla.i:nt., '\!4f 

7, 29), and which has previouc;··· 

ly represented its members in ant~i-d).scrimina tion suits. 

357 u.s. 449 (1958). In contrast to the organizational 

plaintiff in Sierra Club, which was found to lack standing 

because it f~iled to allege that ~ts members "would be 

significantly affected by the ... actions of the respond- 

405 U.S. at 735, both 

15. 

0656




aims of these two groups are alleged to be directly and 

ad_'f·/erseJy· a_f~~c~c~~c·.d. 1:;~t' the irlarleqlla.t;ies ZJ.f t:.he .Ne'~




"The di~,,,·tric~t cou:ct:' s ho1cLin~r t3.-ii:'.L 

the Association lacked st~mding to 

sue wns hande0 dawn prior to ~hat 

c)t t:1·1c St1r."'rern(_:;: Col]:J::t_ i:n /)_::;~_-,-Dc~_iat.5 C:1! 

of JJa_ t:a_ 1) :~r.)c~ c:: ~~~ ;:_; i n~~J SeJ~\? . .-1. (.~~~ (} z-q a.n ..-i. -~"' 

·;:~f t:11b.t. de ..... 

c. i. s i (Ji'J ~~~r1d tJ.-if.: rrto x·~::: rec E:3·1 t: d.ec J. ::~ :i. c,·n 

in Citj_zcns to ?reserve Overton 

Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 

91 r.~.Ct:, 8J.4; 2-S L.Ed .. 2d_ U6 (197l) 

is at least d6ubtful." 

It is not aJlesed that the aims of the organizations 

conflict with those of the plaintiffs or the class they 

455 F.2d 41 (7th Cir. 1972). The determination of a 

class would therefore not alter a finding tha~ Fi?~t Back 

Cif T~abt;:r~ 

42 U.S,.C, §1981 m!..




1956) ~ o.££~dr 3 t·J,\'~.2d. 356 (19S7); BJ.~ce~n "'f./ .. l-,1ox-t 

·--··---··· 

7. The Suit Against the Governor and 

plaint fails to state a cause of action against the Gover- 

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failsre to 

state a claim against a state official, the Supreme Cour~ 

recently reiterated the proposition that "the allegations 

u.s. (April 17, 19 7{1) , and "should not be-:; dismissed 

~or 

failure to state a claim unless it appears 

beyond doubt. ·that: plaintiff cmJl.d prove n.o set. of fic




here clearly states a viable claim against th~ 

Governor 

r::lair1t.ifi;;_; 1 cJa.i.rn.. Th·::~ rnoti.(.JD. tc; di::;rr;iss the cc~rrrpl.clir1·t 

agdinst these officials is therefore denied. 

C. MOTION FOR A DETPRMINATION OF A CLASS 

order allowing thjs action to be maintained as a class 

ac1:ion F'-n~su~nt 

to Hu1es 23 (a) an.d (b) (2) of th




The private defenda~ts 

argue that plaintiffs have not 

States Constitutio~ 

or Executive Order No. 11246 necesc;f 

l:Zu.1e :? 3) 

p:dbc':lotninate over 

, 425 1'.2d 8S3, 

ai.: 937 .. 

Plaintiffs' c1a1rns are also typical of the class 

claims. P:u1e 23 (a) ( 3), The facts here vi.ci:ua1.1.y· m.irro:r 

Tenney approved the maintenance of an action on behalf of 

20. 

0661




a nearly identical class. 

The fact that Rios involved 

defendants suggest, render the plaintiffs' cJ.airns 

119 0 ·- 2 (IL D • N , Y , 1 9 7 0 ) ,. a f f ' d 

~---···---- 

(1971)' 

tltou~J11 F}laintiS:fs ma5t l1ave. rnE!t t11E~ c~t)J;,licaL;lc star1d.a.1~d.s 

of Hu1e 23 r 

their pleadi:·;gs do ncrt. esta.b.1.i.sh a need for 

a c;1a.::_>s 

a.ct:ic1.n 

rule w~ich 

rsquires th0 demonstration of such a need 

party DDposing the class has acted or refused to act 

on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby 

making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding 

declaratory relief with 

respect to the class as 

490 F.2d 1255, 1261 (2d Cir. 1973), approved the denial 

of a cla.ss determination where cla~;s 

relief 'YlOuld be 

21. 

0662




. ., ' 

J 1.JtlCJln~;_n -r:., 

than the Court ultimately dccrce3 and stated it did ~ot 

been made here, and since Rule 23 grants plaintiffs the 

without demonstrating the necessity of class relief. 

See Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules Relating to ths 

19 66 Amc'nchnents of Fede:ra.l. n.uJ.es of Civil Procedm:e 

Miller, Federal Practice and Proc~dure: Civil §§1775, 1776, 

(1972}. Bur:: see 

5 - ., < ...._ .... , 516 (S.D.N.Y, 197




a:.t'f.: rn·~-~.rnf:"):~::_r·:3 of tl1e 0.c.fc.n




practices, then greater efforts arc mandnted by the Canrepresent 

are b2ing violated. ~):_~:t.~· tJni.ted. E-J·Lc::.t:e ..:3 \i" ... Fia.\le:s 

·--------~----- .,_..______________________________ ;:!_______ _ 

}~"(:1-l_t~idcs 

-~--~---.... ~--- 

Nevertheless, as plaintiffs ~ 

evidentiary hearing is necessary to establish facts which 

a. 

The actual method bv which trainess are selected and 

the Plan without a developed knowledge of its actual 

impact in operation. 

276 (2d CiL 1973), "What is invoJ:ved [J.n a motion for a 

preliminary injunction] i~ 

an evaluation of where the 

equities lie, considering in addition to the hardships 

such factors as the unce:rt:ainty of the issues raJ sed, .. ''. 

24. 

0665




Order No. 11246 has never been juJiciaJly detsrmined. 

calling approxi~ate 

De consolidated with the tyial on the rr~rits 

as providea 

lJ}- P1.11{~ 65 {a~) {2) ()f t:l·je l: 4 ec1e:cu"1 P .. ule::; CJ£ ci~\?j_.l .b':C()CF:(iurt=:'." 

Plan, we turn to the remain 

"ad211.i n i s·ter i11~J c~g(:;!±G i c s ar~:; clireci:ed 

to inform their grantees that where 

there is a viahle and effective 

hornet>O\\'n or imposed cc·r1st:ruction in- 

du:stry plc.u:1 in operat icm in a 

geographical area, additional 

and/or supplementary State or local 

EEO requirements may not be 

applied to Federally-assisted 

0666




(."'.(.}D :-:; l: Y:l.! c.·: t.5. C>.n r .::: t }-_:_ ~:3 l-::. ;:;. \-'f.: 

been ap0roved by either the Goveznor 

or- tll.i.E: rJ-.:-:r::~;~rt:lnC:·:n.·t r3h(>-~J1::J 1:>(~} i11~" 

eluded in the specifications [far 

a1J. Stc:·l~E~ a::·J'-~- ::-~t 

was publlsled 

l 

ln Register on January 21, 19 'jij ! 

to be 

,~• .r.:: • • 

ern::'!cr..lve on the date of publishing. 

it. co:ns-ti·c" 

tuted an amendment to 41 C.F.R. §60-1.4 and, according 

'to its preamble was intended: 

"to clarify ·the exten·l to which 

the U.S. Department of Labor will 

deeD Stote and local government 

equa.l emp:Loyment opportunity requirements 

applicable to federally 

assisted construction contracts 

subject. >co the equal employmeT1t 

26. 

0667




reguirements of Executive Oreer 

11.246, cts r;n:~~.ncle-cir and. i~t~.s i.rtl;)1C!.!1~:::nt- 

:Lng r\.!J.-E~.s! :r-c~~-JlJlatior·l~~; .r ;_~_r;_·::} :J.r:d(:;:·s! 

.i.r1 c 1 'LJ.(3.i ng ~F~: .... ~cLE! r :::i.1 E:(~~ ;).a: l -21Tl1;) l o~~~rr:.r:-~rl t. 

oppor~unity bid documents incorpo- 

:c .:~. t .. ~;_n g t.t:.{-? .rc ~1 ~J i ·c~:..:··tnen-~~- '3 c:f \n.J J. r.::r2 t c: __·cy 

or imposed construction indust~y 

plans establjshsd pursuant to the 

I~;::ecuti\re ():cc~;:::~c .. t$ ".39 I'r;d. ~ J~;.::g .. 

p~ojects to submit th2 requi~emerrts to the Director of th~ 

Office of Federal Contract C 

Director was to render a dccis~on 

which could be a0pealed 

~~ ~~~.~ Tr~t;~~ t~e 0 ~:c ~~~~ 1 h :~:~:~JCTr-~~~~~,5 or 

trai11ir.::g reqt.l~-i~rernen-t.--:£~ 

sh.::-\,11 11ot. b-f: 

included in federally assisted 

construc~ion contracts until the 

Director~ or, in. the case of an 

appeal, the Assistant Secretary, has 

had an opportunity to make a determination 

in accordance with this 

paragraph.n 41 C.F.R. §60-l.4(b) 

(2), 39 Fed. Reg. 2365 (January 

21, 1974}. 

Plaintiffs challenge all three regulation~ 

as invalid 

for failure to be published in accordance with 

federal and state law. 

They also challenge the Brenn~n 

employment oppo:ctunity prcqrams. 

27. 

0668




Memorandum ~nd 

the JunQ 29, lS73 State letter. 

Ir1 t.}-f':3 

quirements of the Ad~inistrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

and the federal defendants in this case are accord ly 

all 

enjoined from enforcing the Erc2:na:l1 lielr:e>:candum or~/ teder·- 

ally-assisted construction projecls. 

Plaintiffs next argue t~2t 

the State letter is 

invalid because it was not pubJi~hed 

as required by Art- 

:lcle 4 1 

§8, New York Consi:i tution, and New York Exec:·:t.ive 

Law §102. 

Article 4, §8 of the Stat0 Constitution 

(McKinney 1969) provides: 

28. 

0669




"No 

()X" 

-; . 

Y (~ ~jU .. !. Ci ·c l. C; ~ 1 

bv any state department, beard, 

b~reau, officer, authority or cornmission; 

except such as relates to 

tl-~(: crgar·t:1.:/,~~t.i{).l-J o:c :i.nter.rJ,·-~.1. rr~~~.:rla~~;f~- 

ment of a sta~e dc0artment, beard, 

}:_; lJ.:C (::: ?:l U 1 

2 1 1 t: h.f)l~ .i 1·::;( C~ y· C()ll't:Ci i 'i. ;:_; i ()D. :: 

shall be effective until jt is filed 

T~e legislature shall pro- 

\;j_d_e _fc;r L-.-~-2 specc.r.~'/ :tc ...:.~:.:.ic;!·;. c)f 

s tlc.ll ru.J. ~~ ~:; .?::_xJ,:J_ X.'(::·-~-l11 {:t t .. i.0~1E- l })y 

a.pp:copr:i2tc lt:·f~4S (· n 

' 

(McKinney 1972) which provi.des for J.ic;z;_t.:L(_;r.~. of Ei~LI 

been interpreted by tho New York Court of Appeals in 

2d 495 (1961) , in which 

10 N.Y.2J '~3, 218 N.Y.S.2d 38, 176 N.~. 

"The term 'rule or regulation,' has 

not, it is true, been the subject of 

r)rec .i se d:..:: f j_]-;. it i ();·: ' J:>tl t: ·t.J:l:::~ s:c c;c.1rl }.)8 

I.i t t.le: donb-: that, as emp1.oyc·d 1 n t.he 

cor1s t.i. t11 .. i:j_c~na1 l)Y"C"~V is ic~n, it_---_, E:rtJ.l:Jx·aces 

any kind of legislative or quasilegislative 

norm or procedure which 

establishes a pattern or course of 

conduct for the future. The label 

or na.rae err~r:.>l(Jj.recl is 11




defendants do not contest the fact that the letter 

was n~ver published 1 the motion £or surr@ary judgment.is 

granted, and the State defendants are enjoined from 

enforcing the terms of the letter ttlithout meeting the 

8/ 

necessary publication requirements. 

C. MOTION FOR PRELJ:t1emorandum and the State letter as to locallyadministered, 

public construction sites which receive 

federal or sta·te assistance as the case may be. 

D. FEDERAL DEFENDANTS 1 NOTIO:JS TO DISHISS 

The plain·tiffs move to dismiss for failure to 

by 

exha.ust the re.medy allegedly afforde0/ the January 1974 

regulation. 

As indicated above in detail, we held in the 

companion case of Cit.y v. Diamond, S~J?r~-' 

that the 

Januar_y regulation of the Secx




For the reasons set forth above, the motions to 

dismiss are denied except as to the New York State Department 

of Labor. 

The motions for deter-mination of a 

class and for partial surnmary judgment are granted. 

The 

motion for preliminary relief is granted to the extent 

indicated. 

It is so ordered. 

Da·ted: New York, New York 

November 8, 1974. 

3J .• 

0672




1. Plaintiffs' motion to sonsolid0to this case with ~ rsis 

t.ha t. 

"\~ ("J r }~. J? .t.ari ;- i:)l1 L vJ it:-, ,:_=s_ .c (~Y-Y £ J.·:c::t; t i! :::· I> 1 n tl j :n. \J c;_.o:rt aT _'i ;· .13 7 .3 < 

frJ-lr~ TC: .:·1_ ~E t;;.; r , i::b -r; C ~L t_y· r:· .t'C:Hf(1J.l ~~J ~1-;.:.t:.: (~l .i. t:.::: c;'.;..,-- I: ;_~·u 1{:? ~~ :} r~c-t 

rc. ~1'-1 1. Z.{ L:. i o:~ E:: l c f f e c "C. i ·.,?(:! .. Jt1t :;_; 2 0 , 1 ~~: 7 ~~ " ~r·j-I ~:: ~~:;e .-;.:·-1...!.1 ::.~: s -=l~-1 c1 

J:'(::~Jt·: 1c:· t-:J.0r~~:::~ :- t:~)i~J~::.:'t~·:(.: :-:·· -..:-:·3~ t~b t.2·;_r:: 1"-.-J.::·::;-·c;~c; ~; F;~~--~:;c::J t.i\tf: Cfr·d




Enterpri.so 0ssociation, Lo~~l 638, 360 F.Supp. 979 

-T·s·~~·i;:-IY ~- -~z--.~-----J~~~f--T~~)~~~-j~~ii::"t. ,:; :c:!:;·· -~ ·- I) r -~)~ c; 5_ (; ~-=-: of d. i ~=) c: r· _;_ re:t n .:.r. t: i c_:;_~-3 

;c_:~ !T·~·~::) J () ~( ::-:::. ~::· :?~; i 2. [~ -3 () ("· -~ ::~ . ~ ·:- r~ ::· .lJ j (") ·: r:- -.~: ; ; fJn j_ -;_~: C>:·;~ S




11 

I 

l 

I! 

:l 

I 

z 

II 

lls 

II 

II Z 

" 

tl 1--t 

i! ~ 

0 

H 

I! 

j 

I 

II 

I 

! 

0675




IN THE UNITED S'l'ATES DISTJUC'I' COURT 

.FOR THJ.: SOUTHERJ.'J DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-------------------------------------x 

ALBERT E. PERCY, ~~ al., 

-against- 

Plaint.iffs, 

·····:· 

·: : ~-- .. 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

PE'l'ER ,J. BRENNAN, et al. , 

Defendants. 

-------------------------------------x 

73 Civ. 4279 

{N.E.I,.) 

Upon all prior proceedinqs had herein and upon the 

annexed affidavit of Dennis .R. Yeager, let tho defendants show 

cause before t.his Court. io. E~.->;~PJtLof the OnitE~d St.ates District 

Court. for th€ Southern Di.st.r:i.ct of New York, Foley Square, 

Nev? York, New York 10007 on November2,{, 1974 at 10:00 a.m. why 

-..........,..,~~~·---..-.-- ~~ .............. """"" ............... ~ . 

an order should not be




IN 'fHF~ UNI'I'ED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERl'~ DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

------------------------------------x 

ALBERT E"' PERCY, ~!:_ al. , 

Pla.intiffs, 

-against.- 

.BRENNt\N, ~t al. , 

Defendants. 

------------------------------------x 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 

OF APPLICATION FOR 

OEDE:RTn-S1f0wC'A\JSE 

AND INJUNCTION 

73 Civ. 4279 

(l>l.E.L.) 

DENNIS R. YEAGER, being duly sworn, deposes and says~ 

1. He is an att.orney for. plaintiffs in this matter. 

2. On ,July 24th, 1974, this Court entered an opinion 

City of New York v. Di_~~~-0-' 

73 Civ, 5293, in which it dedared 

29 C.F.R. §60-lA (39 Fed. Reg. 2365 [January 21, 1974] 

"Regulation") to be "invalid." 

3. On November 8, 1971, this Court entered a Memorandum 

in this action i.n which, after findinq that there was no 

for plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies and that. 

had standing to bring this action, it. concluded, .:i.-_~_!:.E?:E. .




5. Plaintiffs have not previously sought the relief 

sought in the Order to Show Cause in support of which this 

affidavit is submitted. 

6. This Mo·tion is brought on by Order to Show Cause 

because plaintiffs are clearly entitled to the relief requested 

under this Court's declaratory judgment in City of New York v. 

!?_~5E!c~:m~, 

73 Civ. 5293, and its Hemorandum in this case and, upon 

information and belief, ·the Defendants United States Department 

of I,abor, Peter J. Brennan, Bernard DeLury and Phillip ,T. Davis 

are cont.inuing to enforce the Regulation. 

WHEREFORE deponent. respectfully request.s that this 

Court grant plaintiffs Order to Show Cause and Motion for an 

.injunction preventing further enforcement of the .invalid 

Regulation. 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Sworn to before m€l 

this 12th day of November, 1974 

~.J~ 

NO'l'ARY PUBLIC


for an order enjoining defts ... ret 11-20-7 4 - 


UNI'l'ED S'I'A'f.'ES DISTRIC'I' COURT 

.F'OR THE 

SOU'.l'HERN DISTRICT OF' NE\"1 YORK 

-------------------------------------X 

ALBERT E. PERCY, ec _al., 

-against.- 

PETER ,J. BRENNAN, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 

73 Civ. 4279 

(J1.EL) 

Defendants. 

-------------------------------------X 

STATE OF I~E'VJ YORK ) 

) SS": 

COUN'l'Y OF NE'iJ YOW\) 

DIAHA IL GREENE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am over the age of 21, reside a·t 16 Fiske Place, 

Brooklyn, New York, and am noi: a party to t.his action. 

2. On tl1e 13th day of November, 1974 in the forenoon 

I 

served the foregoing Order to Show cause and Affidavit in 

Support of Application for Order to Sholv Cause and Injunction, 

together with plaintiffs' proposed Order, upon: 

Paul Curran, Unit,~d States Attorney 

by personally delivering copies thereof 

to Steven Glassman, Assistant United 

States At.t.orney, in Room 325, United 

s·tates Court. House, Foley Square, 

New York, New York; 

Louis J. Lefkovd tz, Z.\ttorney General 

of the State of New York, by personally 

delivering copies thereof 

to Floyd G. Millikan, Assistant 

Attorney General, in Room 4826, 

Two ltiorld Trade Center, New York, 

New York; 

Walter M. Colleran, Esq., by personally 


to Mary G. Bourke at the offices 

of Doran, Colleran,,O'Rara, Pollio 

and Dunne, PC., 1140 Avenue of the 

Americas, New York, New York; 


Brennan, United States 

Department of Labor, 

DeLury, Davis and Office 

of Federal Cont.ract 

Compliance 


Rockefeller, Levine and 

New York State Department. 

of Labor 

Counsel for Bu.ild:i.ng and 

Construction Trades coun~ 

cil of Nevi York; co-coun-: 

sel for the New York Plan 

For Training, Inc. and 

New York Building and 

construction Industry 


Fund 

0679


for an order enjoining defts ... ret 11-20-7 4 - 


P~obf~:rt G. Benischr I:sq~, by personally 

del.i ver ing copies thereo£ 

to the offices of B.;::rrnan~ Paley: 

Goldstein, Gnd nerma.a at 500 F'i£-ti:l 

Plvenue r ~~e\.•1 York, NeVl '{O.J.k ~ and 

Co-counsel for the New 

York Plan J?or Tra.in.iil.g, 

Inc. and Nc\.J York Build 

.i.ng a.r~d const.ruct:ion 

Industry Board of Urb.:tn 

Affairs Fund 

Robert J. Pink:>'{i1y personally 

delivering corJ".ies ther~o£ to 

Francine J. Kilhilly at the 

offices o.f F'rench, FL·"Jk, l4ark1e 

and. McCaLlion; llO East 42nd Stree~~r 

:Jew York, NC\J York~ 

Co-counsel for t1le New 

York Plan For Train_ing, 

Inc~ and N€\+f Yo:ck Building 

and Cons truct_i_ en 

Industry Roard of Urban: 

Affairs F'und 

swoxn to before me 

' .. /

1974-11-14; Order To Show Cause by pltffscertified 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT. COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-------------------------------------x 

ALBERT E. PERCY, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 

-against- 

PETER J. BRENNAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

-------------------------------------x 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

73 Civ. 4279 

(M.E.L.) 

Upon all prior proceedings had herein and upon the 

annexed affidavit of Dennis R. Yeager, let the defendants show 

cause before this Court in Room 2903 of the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of New York, Foley Square, 

New York, New York 10007 on November~, 

1974 at 10:00 a.m. why 

an order should not be entered enjoining defendants United States 

Department of Labor, Peter J. Brennan, Bernard DeLury and Phillip 

J. Davis from enforcing 29 C.F.R. §60-1.4 (39 Fed. Reg. 2365 

[January 21, 1974]). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of this Order to 

Show Cause together with Plaintiffs' PFOposed Order 

deemed good and sufficient if made~~ =\:o /A 6(;t1 

_,A' ·~ ( 

1974. 

shall be 

on November 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: New York, New York 

November f.), 1974 

MORRIS E. LASKER 

United States District Judge



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


------------------------------------x 

ALBERT E. PERCY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

-against- 

PETER J. BRENNAN, et al. , 

Defendants. 

------------------------------------x 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT 

OF APPLICATION FOR 

ORDER TO SHOW cAUsE 

AND INJUNCTION 

73 Civ. 4279 

(M.E.L.) 

DENNIS R. YEAGER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. He is an attorney for plaintiffs in this matter. 

2. On July 24th, 1974, this Court entered an opinion 

in City of New York v. Diamond, 73 Civ. 5293, in which it declared 

29 C.F.R. §60-lA (39 Fed. Reg. 2365 [January 21, 1974] 

(the "Regulation") to be "invalid. 11 

3. on November 8, 1971, this Court entered a Memo- 

1 randum in this action in which, after finding that there was no 

I 

need for plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies and that 

they had standing to bring this action, it concluded, inter alia 

that the plaintiff class was entitled to an injunction against 

further enforcement of the "Brennan Memorandum", but did not enjoin 

enforcement of the Regulation as it applies to plaintiffs. 

4. Plaintiffs have challenged the Brennan Memorandum, 

the Regulation and a Lette.r of the Industrial Commissioner of th 

State of New York (See Percy v. Diamond, Slip Opinion at 27) but 

because the Regulation was promulgated after plaintiffs moved fo 

preliminary relief and summary judgment, plaintiffs have not spe 

cifically moved previously to have the Regulation enjoined.



5. Plaintiffs have not previously sought the relief 

sought in the Order to Show Cause in support of which this 

affidavit is submitted. 

6. This Motion is brought on by Order to Show Cause 

because plaintiffs are clearly entitled to the relief requested 

under this Court's declaratory judgment in City of New York v. 

Diamond, 73 Civ. 5293, and its Memorandum in this case and, upon 

information and belief, the Defendants United States Department 

are continuing to enforce the Regulation. 

WHEREFORE deponent respectfully requests that this 

Court grant plaintiffs Order to Show Cause and Motion for an 

injunction preventing further enforcement of the invalid 

Regulation. 


I ii Sworn to before me 

, this 12th day of November, 1974 

\i 

\\~Md.&r 

\! NOTARY PUBLIC 

I\ 

II 

! 

tRUNHILDA S. BcWO 

Notcry Pub!ic., ~,:-:-.; .~ d 1-.l.-.w Ycrk 

No. ::,1 i.)l9·i0•!0 

Qvolifie:J In N~::w 'fod:.. Covnty .r 

commission hpires. N\orch 30f 197-.:J.



I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-------------------------------------X 

ALBERT E. PERCY, et al. , 

-against- 

PETER J. BRENNAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 


73 Civ. 4279 

(MEL) 

Defendants. 

------------------------------------~x 

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss.: 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 

DIANA H. GREENE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am over the age of 21, reside at 16 Fiske Place, 

Brooklyn, New York, and am not a party to this action. 

;: 

',i 

2. On the 13th day of November, 1974 in the forenoon 

I served the foregoing Order to Show Cause and Affidavit in 

Support of Application for Order to Show Cause and Injunction, 

;i 

i: together with plaintiffs' proposed Order, upon: 

Paul Curran, United States Attorney 

by personally delivering copies thereof 

to Steven Glassman, Assistant United 

States Attorney, in Room 325, United 

States Court House, Foley Square, 

New York, New York; 

:l 

il 

;! Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General 

'i of the State of New York, by per- 

\\ sonally delivering copies thereof 

to Floyd G. Millikan, Assistant 

Attorney General, in Room 4826, 

Two World Trade Center, New York, 

New York; 

Walter M. Colleran, Esq., by personally 


to Mary G. Bourke at the offices 

of Doran, Colleran,,O'Hara, Pollio 

and Dunne, PC., 1140 Avenue of the 

Americas, New York, New York; 


Brennan, United States 

Department of Labor, 

DeLury, Davis and Offic 

of Federal Contract 

Compliance 


Rockefeller, Levine and 

New York State Departme 

of Labor 

Counsel for Building ar. 

Construction Trades Co~ 

cil of New York; co-co~ 

sel for the New York Pl 

For Training, Inc. and 

New York Building and 

Construction Industry 


Fund



I 

sonally delivering copies thereof 

to the O·ffices of Berman, Paley, 

Goldstein, and Berman at 500 Fifth 

Avenue, New York, New York; and 

tp~· 

Robert J. Fink1. by personally 

delivering co~ies thereof to 

Francine J. Kilhilly at the 

offices of French, Fink, Markle 

and McCallion, 110 East 42nd Street, 

New York, New York. 

an 

Inc. and New York Bui ' 

ing and Construction 

' Industry Board of Urba 

Affairs Fund 

Co-counsel for the New 

York Plan For Training 

Inc. and New York Buil 

ing and Construction 

Industry Board of Urba 

Affairs Fund 

Sworn to before me 

this /1{{1, day of November, 19 7 4 

a~,J?4 

NOTARY PUBCIC


Johnson- certified 2017-10-06 doc 27 

IN THJ'; UNITED STATES DISTRIC'l' COURT 

F'OR THE SOUTHr&RN DISTRICT OB' Nt;w YORK 

--------------------------------------K 

,~BERT 

E. PERCY,~ al., 

-against- 

PE'l 1 ER J-. BHENNAN r et al_. , 

P laint.iffs, 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 

73 Civ. 4279 

(M.E.L.) 

Defendants~ 

--------------------------------------x 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 10!00 a.m. on the •2S~b 

da~(' 

of November, 1974 at Room 601 of the United States Coui:'t:h,(H:lSE?< 

E'oley Square, Ne\•l York, Ney; York r plaintiffs "~-..ill tuke th¢::_:d~po-~sition 

of 

Claudius Johnson, Director 

New York Plan for Training, Inc .. 

24 West 40th S·treet. 16th !-"loor 


by oral 0i(d) of the Yederal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, ·to produce at the time and place of the abQvenoticed 

.:ieposition:: 

(1) ~~ list of the qual i.fications necessary for trainees 

to meet in each craft or trade, 

(2) A list of the total number of trainees placed in 

each craft for e2:1.ch year the New York Plan for Training has been 

in existence to rlatel' ·together 'irlith an indication as to whether 

or not they :became union members. 

(3) Copies of all written complaints, formal or in·· 

formc



such deposition is not completed on the 25th day of November, 

1974, such deposi-tion may be continued from day to day until 

such time as it is completed. 

.Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: November /'f, 1974 


Dennis R. Yeager 

Isabelle Katz Pinzler 

Diana H. Greene 

423 \'i'est l1Bth Street 

10027 

By~ -~/~;[_AI;.-.jf:J~~~ 

.I',TTORNEYS 

TO: 

Paul Curran, United Sta·tes Attorney 

Attn: Joel B. Harris, Asst. U.S. 

Attorney 

Federal Courthouse 

F'oley Square 


Louis J. LeDwwi tz, Attorney 

General of the State of New York 

Attn: Lloyd G. Milliken, Ass·t. 


Two Wor·ld 'l'rade Center 


Walter M. Colleran, Esq. 

Doran, Colleran, O'Hara, Pollio & Dunne, P.C. 




Berman, Paley, Goldstein & Berma.n 


Ne''' York, New York 

Robert J. Fink, Esq. 

French, Fink, Markle & McCallion 


New York, New York 10017 

···········-·--·------....c;_ ________________ -----~~ .............. . 

06R7



··:· .. 

·.:· ... ::. 

·-.-· 

·.·/·:.:·- 

-.-:-:·.:.·- 

:.::· .... :..:·-· 

·····:·::· .. ·:·.;·.: .. -· 

···:·_._:;:·::.:.--· 

·::·:::..:.....:.:·... '•'. -::. 

···:.·. 

··: .. ;· 

···.··::.·-···


George Daly- certified 2017-10-06 doc 24 

E'OR 

-------------------------------X 

ALBEW[' F;. PERCY, et_ a1 .. , 

-against- 

Plaintiffs, 


De£endani:s. 

-------------------------------x 

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 

73 Ci



C.P.R. §60-1.4 

2635 [January 31, ]974]) or the letter of the 

Department of Labor of the State of New York dated 6/29/73. 

2. Copies of all documents J:t:l;u t. t:1-g t.o any xevi ew, 

otho:..~r 

study of the effectiveness of the Ne1.-7 York Plan. 

3. A copy of the budget for the Board for each 

from and including 1970 to date, 

PI,E;ASE: TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t.hat, in the event that 

deposition is not complet.ed on the 25th day of November, 

197,1, such deposition may be continued from day to day unt.:il 

such time as it. is completed~ 

Ne't; Yo1:-k, New York 

November /f , 1974 

Yours, etc. 

Paul Curran, U~S, Attorney 

Attn: Joel B. Barris~ 

Asst. u.s. Attorney 

Federal Courthou.se 

Folev Square 

New Yorj{, New York 

LoGis J. Lefkowitz, 

Attorney General of the 

Stat.e of 1:-lew York 

Attn: Lloyd G. Milliken, 

Asst. J....tt.ornev General 

'i'wo world Trade cente.r 

Net;J York~ 1\!ew York 

Dennis R" Yeager 

Isabelle Katz Pinzler 

Diana H~ G.reene 

423 West 11.Rth SLreet 

New York, New York 10D27 

r-·· 

Byf_ll/4:~ f~~-- 

D1ANA H~rENE 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 


Doran, Colleran, o~Hara, Pollic1 & Dunnei P~C~ 

1140 Avenue of t.he Americas 

N.z'"..; York, 1:-~e\Y York 10036 

Robert G~ Benish: Esq~ 

Berman, Paley, Goldstein & Berman 

500 Fift.h Avenue 

Ne;v York y Net.v York 


French, Fink, !·1arkle & McCallion 

110 E>:ast 42nd Street 

New York, New York 10017



I certLfy that. a copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Deposition was served on counsel for Defendants this 18th 

day of Novem.oer, 1974 by first-class mail, postage. prepaid, 

to: 

Paul Curran, United Sta.tcs Attorney 

Attn: Joel B. Harris, Asst .• li. s. 

Att.orney 

l'ederal Courthouse 

l'oley Square 

New York, Nevl York 

Louis J"' Lefkowitz, Attorney 

General, State of New York 

At.tn: Lloyd G. Milliken, Asst. 


Two WorJd Trade Center 

. New York ( New York 

Walter M. Co1leranr Esg~ 

Dr.n:-an, Ccllerany 0 1 Hara, Pollio 

& Dunne, P~C~ 

1140 A\renue of t:he Americas 

New Yo.rk, New York 10036 

Telephone: 986-3737 

i .Rof_1ert: G~ Be:ni sch ~ Esq? 

H8.nnan, Paley 1 -Goldstein & Berman 

500 F.ifth Avenue 

·Ne"' York, New York 

·Telephone: 354-9600 


French, Fink, Harkle & HcCa.lli.on 

110 East 42nd St.reet 

· New York, New York 10017 



Brenna.n, United St.at.es 

Departme11t of Labor 1 

DeLury, Davis and Office 

of Federal Contract 

Compliance 


Rock.efe11er 1 Lev_ine~ and 

New York State Department 

of Labor 

Counsel for Building and 

Construction ?ra.des Council 

of New York; co-·counsel for 

·the New York Plan For ri'rain ~· 

lng, Inc. and Ne~< York 

Building and Construction 

Industry Board of Urban 

Affairs Fund 

Co-counsel for the New York 

Plan F'OX' '1~rairdng. Inc. and 

New York Building and Ccns'cruction 

lndusti:y Board of 


Co·-counsel for the New York 

Plan J?'or IJ.'ra:ining 1 Inc~ and 

New York Building and Construction 

Industry Board of 


0691



Given-certified 2017-07-25 doc 2 

IN THE 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

------------------------------------X 

~~LBERT E. PERCY, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 

Defendants. 

---------------------------------------X 

73 Civ. 4279 

(M.E.L.) 

:I 

!. Upon the Affidavit and Memorandum Law in support of 

; 

lthe Motion for Leave to Communicate with Class Members, 

II 

fplaintiffs move this Court, ex parte, pursuant to Rule 23 (d) 

:j 

li




1: FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORl< 

/I 

1~----------------------------------x 

[i 

!~LBERT E. PERCY, et al. , 

: 

,. 

;! 

II 

:j 

~~ETER 

j~f 

II 

-against- 

J. BRENNAN, Secretary 

Labor, et. al., 

Plaintiffs, 

fi 

Defendants. 

II : 

lr----------------------------------x 

[, 

;) 

jt State of New York ) 

,I > ss.: 

!1 County of New York) 

!! 

ii 

I< 

I' ,I 

il action. 

II 

d 

1: 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR PERMISSION TO COMMUNI 

CATE WITH MEMBERS OF THE 

CLASS 

73 Civ. 4279 

(M.E.L.) 

DIANA H. GREENE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

l. She is an attorney for the plaintiffs in this 

2. On the basis of preliminary inquiries, large 

ji numbers of members of the class are potential witnesses in 

:1 this action and it is necessary for the proper presentation 

,! 

1 

/ of plaintiffs' case that plaintiffs' attorneys be allowed to 

i 

il contact members of the class in order to elicit relevant 

!I 

11 factual information. 

i! 

"!f 3. Communications with members of the class by 

,, 

ii plaintiffs' attorneys will deal with the following areas: 

I, 

II 

II 

I 

1! 

I! 

I, 

I' 

u 

j1 

II 

II 

II 

i! 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

basic information such as names, addresses, 

telephone numbers, and race and/or national 

origin; 

the work experience of individual class 

members1 

applications by class members for union 

membership or apprenticeship in the construction 

industry in the New York area; 

the identity of persons contacted in connection 

with and descriptions of the circumstances 

surrounding efforts made by




class members to enroll as trainees under 

the New York Plan including information 

as to whether or not such class members 

were admitted as trainees; 

(e) 

experiences of individual class members 

as New York Plan trainees. 

4. The National Employment Law Project Inc., of which 

I 

am a staff attorney, is not charging fees to its clients in 

this action, nor, upon information and belief, is the N.A.A.C.P. 

charging such fees, and the purpose of contacting the class 

members will not be to solicit additional class members for the 

purpose of increasing attorney's fees. 

II 

1 

, WHEREFORE, deponent respectfully requests that this 

!court grant plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Communicate 

lwi th Members of the Class. 

1Sworn before.~e on this 

11Tll day of #OtJe-/111/JEI{ , 1974. 

~~fl.r 

ANA H. GENE 

' 

I



certified 2017-10-06 doc 13






-------------------------------------x 


-against- 

PETER J. BRENNAN, Secretary 

of Labor, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT 

OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING 

LEAVE TO COMMUNICATE WITH 

CLASS MEMBERS. 

Defendants. 

-------------------------------------X 

r. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Pursuant to Rule 2 3 (d) 

(5) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, plaintiffs and their attorneys request leave 

of this court to communicate with members of the class for 

the limited purpose of obtaining witnesses and evidence for 

trial. 

II. ARGUMENT 

No local court rule of the Southern District of New 

York forbids such communications; presumably, plaintiffs' 

attorneys could communicate with class members without prior 

court approval. 

Nevertheless, the Manual for complex and 

Multidistrict Litigation ("Manual") recommends that leave of 

court be obtained prior to communicating with class members. 

0696




See Manual §1. 41 at 22,· Manual Appendix §1.41 at 145. 

To 

govern communications by parties with class members, the 

Manual reconunends adoption of a local rule I"Local Rule 7"], 

the purpose of which is to prevent parties from 

11 

••• directly or indirectly, without 

knowledge or consent of the court, solicit(ing] 

from the potential or actual 

members of the class (or subclasses) who 

are not formal parties, funds for attorneys' 

fees and expenses, or agreements to pay fees 

and expenses." Manual §1.41 at 22. 

Plaintiffs' attorneys, employed by the National Employment 

Law Project, Inc. and the N.A.A.C.P., are not charging their 

clients fees for their services in this action (Affidavit 

of Diana H. Greene in Support of EX Parte Motion to Conununicate 

with Class Members, ["Supporting Affidavit"] ,14); 

therefore no suggestion of unethical solicitation activity 

can be implied from their communications with members of the 

class. 

However, in view of the policy contemplated by the 

Manual, plaintiffs believe the better course is to apply to 

this court, ex parte, for permission to contact potential 

witnesses. 

As noted above, the recommended local rule contemplates 

only the prevention of "unapproved direct or indirect 

written and oral communications by formal parties of their 

counsel with potential and actual class members, who are 

-2- 

0697




not formal parties . . . " · Manual §1. 41 at ~2. Thus, 

the rule allows court-approved communications and envisions 

exactly the type of order requested by plaintiffs here 

" . the court should freely consider 

proposed communications which will not constitute 

abuse of the class action. In many such ·cases, 

the class members will have knowledge of facts 

relevant to the li'tiga:ti'ori and to require a 

party to develop ·the ·a·ase without contact with 

such witnesses may welT constitute a denial of 

due process." 

"There will normally be some need for counsel 

to communicate with class members on such routine 

matters as answering factual inquiries and developing 

factual matters in preparation for the class 

action determination as well as for trial. In 

order that there might be some minimal judicial 

control of these communications, it is suggested 

·that ex parte leave may be given by the Court." 

Manua~ §1.41 at 24 (emphasis added). 

There is a pressing need in this case for communications 

with class members if plaintiffs' case is to be 

properly presented (Supporting Affidavit 112). 

No doubt many 

non-whites have attempted to obtain construction industry 

employment during the period the New York Plan was in effect; 

and no doubt many of these people and others have been referred 

to and have participated in the New York Plan. 

The experiences 

of these individuals are obviously relevant to 

plaintiffs' case. 

Although there is no specific local court rule in 

.-3- 

0698




this District regulating contacts with class members, Rule 

23 (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 

allows this Court to make appropriate orders for the conduct 

of class actions. The Rule enumerates a variety of appropriate 

orders and then allows orders "[5) dealing with similar 

procedural matters." An order of the type contemplated by 

this Motion is within the bounds of FRCP 23 (d) (5) . "The 

orders that may be issued under (d) provide the Court with 

wide discretion, and (d) 

(5) makes it clear that the Court 

is not rigidly bound by the types of orders it may issue." 

3b Moore • s Fed. Prac. ~123. 7 0 at 1402. 

Thus both the recommended 

Local Rule 7 and FRCP (d) 

(5) allow this Court 

to grant plaintiffs leave to communicate with members of 

the class in this case. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' Ex Parte 

-4- 





",,.., 

•· 

.'\.' . 

...]ii:,"' 

~--- 

Motion for an Order Granting Leave to communicate with Cla~s 

Members should be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DENNIS R. YEAGER 

ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER 

DIANA H. GREENE 

423 West ll8th Street 


NATHANIEL R. JONES, 

General Counsel 

WILLIAM D. WELLS 

N.A.A.C.P. 

1790 Broadway - lOth Floor 


-5- 

0700

1974-11-22; Filed Order defts USDOL-Brennan-Delury 

& Davis by Lasker are enjoined - 

certified 2017-07-25 doc 3, 2017-8-11 doc 19 

IN 'l'HR UNI'J.'ED STATES DISTRIC'l' COUB'f 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEtv YORK 

---~---------------------------------x 

-against- 

PETER :s. BRENNAN, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 

Defendants. 

-------------------------------------x 

ORDER 

73 Civ. 4279 

{M.E.L.) 

Defendants United States Department of Labor, Peter 

J. Brennan, Bernard Dei,ury and Phillip J.. Davis are hereby enjoined 

from further enforcement of 29 C.F.R. §60-1.4 (39 Fed. 

Reg. 2365 [c!anuary 21, 1974]). 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated; Ne'" York, _New York 

November ~1· , 19 7 4 

'


dated Nov. 21, 1974- certified 2017-07-25 doc 3 

; 

l 

(} 

li 

! 

l 

~ 

' 

l 

; 

'i 

5 

6 

.., ~, . 

.' .... 

? 

8 

s 

•.•.• •-·~ , ••• ,• •• • ••.• •.•.• · •0:• 9 •> •.•.~ •.•.• •• •;•



.l 

3 

8 

10 

• .,~ • ~ ~-·· , .·.A··· 

.. :.": :_._. ~: . ~:;··· .,.,... .· 

New York. N,Y. 1.0017; 

14 

1& 

2\t:.t.:r.::-:~F=·::.:·· {1 ~- E~ ·: 

I .. .r.:J>:::->:r:· ... 

16 

1'7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS, U.S, CCURTWOIJSE 

l"OLF.:Y SQUARE, 1



3 

.::. ·~··· .•···· .: ... ~ ; .;,;: 

7 

.tt 

.:L ·t:.·. -~ 

9 

10 

11 

13 

14 

15 

16 


:; .. ··:·· 



:j_ 

z 

:3 

ll 

4 i 

l 

5 i l 

! 

6 ! 

l 

7 i 

I 

8 i 

tiffs has in fact 

. ,, .. 

J.. ~~; ':';~1 }. ) . 

9 

10 

H 

to advise the Court in the 

12 

13 

1.4 

15 

16 


18 

19 

.::. 

:; ...... . 

20 

21 

We arrn certainlv 

':~~ 

,; .-., 

............ · 

22 

j 

23 I 

I 

ll 

24 

I 

26 

! 

I 

I 

I 

·-:-~ ~-...... ·: ;,.?..,..... 

.'r. ·-;,;:,;::;;. .).~ ~,'{ ;,..,,• 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT REI'ORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUARE:, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7-4Sl!O 

opos



1 

'.1 

u 

·- don't understand? 

8 

9 

.._.....;·... 

.:: =~ .._:· ~--· ::';:()f::.······ 

10 

n 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

18 

19 

I:n 

City of New York? 

-~_.: -~----:,. -'!'•'-':t .... - 

,.:., ·· ... · .•:. -~·-. 

2l. 

SO\HHcRN DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS. U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUM1E, :-



., 

~ 

:."·: 

~, 

;(:; 

4 

D 

6 

7 

r• 

"' 

9 

II I 

I 

i 

il 

i 

I 

i 

I 

,j 

l 

I ! 

-~· 

'•,• 

10 

11 

...... •''•' -~- ;; .... .o-: . ..... :.: 

:-~·::. -;, ::. ;~_ .. :;. :~ -: .. ··. :', . ~- 

l" -"-' 

13 

14 

15 

16 


-~·· :_:;· :.::. :.: .... :.: ~::: 1 

13 

19 

20 

21 

22 

28 

24 

25 

i 

i 

I 

! 

I 

j 

I 

I 

i 

i ' 

i 

I 

' 

I i 

I 

! 

' 

I 

ll 

,I 

i I 

! 

I:~-- .1.:.:=;. 

sea that there ia 

SOUT11ERN DISTRICT COUI'!T REPORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

F"OLEV SQUARE, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7-4580 

0 07

8 

12 

13 

15 

16 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 



:~>~t:::·t:: 

.;..;..,;...;... ;· 

MR. MID~IKIN: c ent. 

il 

j! 

jl 

I 

! 

i 

?j 

l 

ij 

' 

I 

jl 

l 

I 

There is a great 

23 

24 

25 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COU~T fHtf'ORTERS. U.S. COURTHOUSE 


708



:' . 

..·.. 

.[.. 

s 

4 



6 

8 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

li 

l! 

ll 

~ 

I 

!: 

j\ 

I! 

li 

li 

I 

! 

·I' I 

1 

l 

li 

! : 

~:.:h .. :-:'_~_-_:._··.· ·-'·'·'. ;~/ ~.::_,_: .. ·:~:_ ::_:·: _·;.. 

_.,· ,_._-__ :··,'_:__-..._::. ._,_:_·.· }_'.·..·:·.=·.: --- . -" ---- - . !'_·:,=.·.=.-~.~. •. ·•· ~ ...·,=.· . 

·:, ·~.. L=< 

. v. 

_,,-.'.:J\n 

'• 

;_



: .. 

~~-- 0 

_,-_, 

,.;_, 

.; .. -:···:··'>,·,· .. :: 

•.• ····-··:·.··· .; 

3 

!._!~ 

!5 

6· 

··; 

., 

8 

9 

1



.·: .... ····~ 

G 

t 

8 

9 

10 

n 

12 

;: .. ;.. •. ;:··· .. ;;._::.::.:•. 

13 

· ... · -~- 

14 

.} .. .:_. 1 ... 

15 


19 

21 

22 

t~- 

25 

SOUTHI::flN OISTF



:, 

'2 

II 

l 

I 

l 

·:: ··::~ 

3 

' 

·~: 

,, 

'l:· 

~ 

'-' 

l' : 

l 

i 

i 

l 

l 

i 

I 

i 

It seems it would 

but 

'! 

8 

I i 

I 

t 

9 

TO 

11 

12 

'l') 

j_..) 

H 

15 

1G 

1? 

113 

that don't need to be 

19 

W! 

;z:t 

i'l(~ 

~cf.J 

2;3 

24 

~~~ ... 

&,.() 

li 

II 

II 

I 

I 

I 

·:.::.r:· ... 

I 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COIJR"f REPORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

!"OU:Y SQUARE, NEW 'v'ORK, t•I,Y. CO 1·4&!!0 

I 

07jl3 

I



8 

T.n 

~ . ••, 

;.,-::.:.. 

.: .. :-.-:. :....· :-.~ 

12 

13 

t. t r:: .. n.d. 

14 

16 

18 

.1.1 . -. '• ~ ... . :· :~'." 

':t:. 

20 

2J 

22 

:::.~. 

rj



rmination of th~t 

., 

l 

8 

t.(> it;~· 

10 

May l soggest one other th 

n 

12 

13 

.;~. ':· . 

.: .... ;.,:: .... 

14 

15 

16 

.::: 17 

iS 

t of proper bid condi 

19 

. '1 , ..... 

·:;.; .(:~. J~ } . (~ 

21 

23 

25 

::;, .. ;_-: 

SOUTHERN OISTRICT COURT REPORTERS, U"S" COURTHOUSE 

FOL.EY SQUARE, NE'il YORK, N.Y. 

CO 7-45BO



,., 

! 

lD 

n 

r:.t .. ·. 

12 

13 

15 

16 

t:: .. 


18 

19 

20 

21 

But ! 

would like a clear 

23 

2.5 

I 

ll 

SOUH!ERN DISTRICI COUR\ REPORTERS, U.S. COURiHOUSE 

!'OLEV 5QIJARE, NEW YORK, N.V. 

CO 7-45!Hl

h 



il 

H 

II 

q 

II 

~:: II 

il 

q 

li 

'> 

·~:· 

11 




9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

15 

{..:f 

-:~ . : ... ~. 

18 

.;:; . ~:-.•, ,._. 

~ .... $.. ~~ -:;; 

19 

20 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT I~EPORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 


! 

OilS 

i

-· 

~} 

q 

" 

~;. 

t::: 

u 

6 

? 

8 

9 

··n tv 

11 

12 

I3 

14 

15 

16 

·• r··~ 

11 

18 

U1 

?Ll 

21 

22 . 



:--:·:··. ::. ·-~.-··. :·-~ :: t. 

! il i 

!! 

!I 

il 

l 

' 

f 

j 

! !I 

I 

.,.., ·.. •, -:-~ .·:•.• 

:";'"r. :.•::. :•••. ~ ..... 

l 

i 

! ' 

I 

l 

i 

I 

' 

I ' : 

1 

i 

! 

I i 

:L =~--- 5. 2.:: ... 

.... ··.·· :::-::. 

2() 

~:.J 

24 

Cith_, 

.~,_;. 

·.; .. ,_, ..... ~· 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT REFOR!ERS, ~I.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUARE, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7--~5130



,., l 

l· 

·=-=· 

-~-· 

II 

·C> 

d 

II 

4 

II 

II 

r~ 

s 

11 

:I 

II 

I· 

! 

''l ! 

j 

! 

! 

8 

' : 

I 

9 l I 

l 

10 l 

~::_: :~::.~ :L ·.:: ~·- .. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

lt: v 

15 

'" .;;:·· 


',, .,,:{:_, 

lB 

.: .. :.·::·:: 

2\1 

0' 

-~~-~ 

22 

THE COU?T: You asked ~;r it. 

J. :~. 

·: -~-. 

' .. ~ 

::;.~8 

;.-., ·::~ •:•." 

;:.-·-:..,.·._. 

24 

:-.. ; .. : ... ·'-··· 

::1: 25 

SOUTHER!>! DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOlEY SQUARE, NE',·i 't'OflK, N.Y. CO 7-4580 

01po 

,



1 

.~.: 

'" 

3 

4 

1"::.: 

'-' 

" 0 

,., 

I 

'(_:(.:. 

"(~ ·':" :·::··-:.:·· •'• 

.1 ••. :.:·.:.:·· 

B 

.t J.s~· 

n 



3 

5 

6 

8 

9 

10 

n 

12 

13 

14 

19 

20 

21 

23 

SOUHJE:r-lN DISIRICT COURT REPORTEflS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQU.O.RE, NE~



2 

•'•'• ....... \ .. 

• ;.;·: •• J \ ... ,. 

... ~;-:, 

? 

8 

lO 

n 

12 

13 

14 

15 

15 

19 

T.f 

20 :.L:n. 

21 

:=····:-;···. 

t 

SOUTHERN OISTR1CT COURT REf:>ORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

f:'OLE"f SQIJ!l.RE, NEW YORK. 'LV. CO 7-45BO



II 

1 

I! 

!l 

H 

n 

? n 

II 

8 

II 

t~ 

I! 

f? I, 

ji 

s 

? 

g 

I! 

! 

i 

' 

: .. ·· 

_.;. 

·::- 

·.•' 

.::.,-..... 

:.... ·.. .. 

q 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

I? 

18 

19 

2U 

21 

22 

23 

·:.:::·· 

,·····:·:···· 

.... ··:.:: 

24 

26 


FOLEY SC)!JARE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 

CO 7-45BO



8 

.:... 

~·~.·.:·' .::-::. "· 

0:~:~. ~?: h;::;:::-:);: ··~:'/~:·) :.:·:··'k }"> }_.:::: ::·;: j_ :::~. -::::~ ...... .;/:. ~-···········{}''···· ·-:·~ 

.. 

H 

12 

13 

14 

.;:.·::.-. .. -.. 

15 

lB 


20 

.L 

·:_. .. ;:., 

-~ .:. :;. ...... :. 

2.3 

24 

r:: {:::.·::::: 

.. 

SOUTMERN DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQU."'i'!l?:, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7-6-SBO 

I 

07j25 

I



2 

~, 

w 

4: 

k 

v 

6 

7 

8 

.;~ ~-··. ·:···. \•:·~· . 

······· .:. ·:~· ;. ,. ;· 

e 

v 

10 

MR. Gl?SSMfN; 

Shou 

11 

l.Z 

13 

14 

15 

16 


13 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

?A 

.-.~ 

t:b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I i 

II 

li 

I' 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

SOIJYHE:RN DISTRICY COURT REI"ORTERS, U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUARE, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7-4580

1975-01-13; Filed Order from USCA (true copy) 

dismissing the appeal by USCA - 


UNITED STATES COURT m:· APPEALS 

SRCOND CJ:RCTJIT 

At a Stated Term of: the United State!'; Court of }\ppeals, in and for 

the Second Circuit, held at the United States Court House, in the City 

of Ne,.,. York, on the sixth day of January 

thousand nine ~P.Jncirf~d and seventy-five 

ALBi~RT 

E. PERCY, JOHN MEHCADO, et a:L. • 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PETER J, EHENNAf\, Secr.etary of La.bor, 

U ~ S "Dl:~P'J:., 01' LABOR 9 et al q, 

' 

Defendants 

/ i. -::.:;-' 

./fl .... 

'rH.E CITY OF NEW YORK, ,JOlil'\ V. LINDSAY, 

etc., et al,, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HENRY L. DIAMOND,etc,, et al. 

---De~TI'~d~c,~:~~t~s~.--------~ 

The Civil P.p::>ea.ls Hanagem"S'nt. Plan of this couct having bE"en 

proroulgc:ted o;; .~pril 9_, 1974 provi::ling t.hnt v~~ithin 10 days after =:iling· 

o. notice of a::;peal the appellan-t shall dochet an appeal, by filing and· 

serving a pre-argument statement (Form C), by ordering £rom t;,., court 

reporter

1975-02-24-02-25; Filed 1\llemo & Order proceedings stay 

and motion denied without prejudicecertified 


I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------x 

ALBERT E. PERCY, JOHN MERCADO, MANUEL 

MEJIA, FIGHT BACK and the NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF 

COLORED PEOPLE, 

-against- 

Plaintiffs, 

73 Civ. 4279 

PETER J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor; 

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; 

BERNARD DeLURY, Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Employment Standards; PHILLIP 

J. DAVIS, Director, Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance; the OFFICE OF 

FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE; HUGH 

CAREY, Governor of the State of New 

York; LOUIS L. LEVINE, Industrial Commissioner 

of the State of New York; the NEW 

YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; the BUILD 

ING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF 

GREATER NEW YORK; the NEW YORK BUILDING 

INDUSTRY AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY BOARD 

OF URBAN AFFAIRS FUND; and the NEW YORK 

P~AN FOR TRAINING, INC., 

Defendants. 

----------------------------------------x 

ORDER 

Plaintiffs having filed an amended complaint 

challenging the New York Plan for Training and seeking declaratory, 

injunctive and other relief relating to equal 

employment opportunities on public construction sites, and 

the United States Department of Labor and the New York State 

Department of Labor having discontinued their approval of the 

New York Plan for Training as an affirmative action program 

for federal and federally assisted and state and state 

assisted construction in New York City, and upon the assurances 

contained in the letters of the United States Attorney, 

dated January 10, 1975 and the Industrial Commissioner of 

the State of New York, dated January 27, 1975, copies of 

which are annexed hereto and made a part hereof, it is 

hereby 

1. 

072R

1975-02-24-02-25; Filed 1\llemo & Order proceedings stay 

and motion denied without prejudicecertified 


I 

ORDERED that further proceedings herein are stayed 

unless the court directs otherwise~ 

and it is further 

ORDERED that no defendant in this action shall enter 

into any agreement with any other defendant or any other 

entity providing for a new affirmative action program for 

public construction in the City of New York which shall become 

effective unless approved by order of this court after 

having been submitted in writing to counsel for the 

plaintiffs herein. Within ten days of receipt of said plan, 

plaintiffs' counsel shall advise the court in writing, with 

copies of counsel for all defendants, of any objections to 

the proposed plan, and within ten days thereafter counsel 

for any defendant who chooses to do so, shall apply in writing 

to the court. The court will rule on any such objection; 

and it is .further 

ORDERED that the court retains jurisdiction of this 

action until July 15, 1976 for the purpose of entertaining 

applications from any party for relief relating to adherence 

to the aforementioned assurances and to the court's prior 

orders of November 8, 1974 and November 21, 1974 or for an 

order dismissing the complaint herein; and it is further 

ORDERED that plaintiffs' application for costs and 

attorneys fees is denied without prejudice to renewal on 

a plenary motion for such relief. 

Dated: 


February 2f, 1975. 

2. 

0729

1975-03-07; Filed Pltffs Affdvt of Service by 

Dennis R Yeager dated 3-5-75- certified 2017-10-06 

doc 28 #,certified 2017-07-25 doc 7 



---------------------------------x 

!ALBERT E. PERCY,~~· 

i 

1 

-against- 

Plaintiffs, 

PETER J. BRENNAN, et ~. , 

Defendants. 

---------------------------------x 

1 STATE OF NEW YORK 

! ss.: 

I cOUNTY OF NEW YORK 


73 Civ. 4279 (MEL) 

DENNIS R. YEAGER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

That on the 5th day of March, 1975, he served, by mail, 

one copy each of the Court's Memorandum of November 8, 1974, the 

I Court's Order of February 

24, 1975 and the Transcript of Pro- 

1 

i ceedings of February 28, 1975 upon William A. Sharkey, Executive 

I 

Director, New York State Dormitory Authority, at 41 East 42nd 

Street, New York, New York 10017, and New York State Dormitory 

Authority, Normanski11 Boulevard, Elsmere, New York 12054; 

George B. Farrington, Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, New 

York State Dormitory Authority, at New York State Dormitory 

Authority, Normanskil1 Boulevard, Elsmere, New York 12054; and 

Irwin Ax1erod, Regional Manager, New York State Dormitory 

Authority, at 41 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017. 

Sworn to before me this 

5th day of March, 1975 

r.:·.·v,_ n. c.::::-_;-:;: 

t·lr.'.:J:!V r\·:~:>, ~-.. ··:, ·:,;- : :-~-:,. v.:.1·!( 

iL!. ~-: -~i~·, ~-·:: < 

Q::.J;,i,:·d L·. 1·.:r :,.,.? u:r.;n:_y ...- 

Comm;c..-~i0H ;:;,,.:it('.;; ~:;.;;r~iJ _39, J.f.>., ~


dated Feb 28, 1975- certified 2017-10-25-1 doc 1 

€t 

1 

2 

3 

4 

jwbr 

Albert E. Percy,et al. 

v. 

Peter ;; . Brennan, et al. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Before: 

HON • .MORRIS E. LASKER, D.,J. 

New York 1 February 28 1 1975 

Romn 2903 - 10:00 a.~. 

11 

THE COURT: 

This conference was called in 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 


view of confusion created in the mind of the Court by 

reading public reports in the press as to 'r.'hat seemed to 

be a· continuance of reliance on use by the State of New York 

Plan. 

That concern on the part. of the Court was mace 

even more emphatic by a letter from the plaintiffs' counsel 

18 

dated February 25th, enclosing material relati~g 

to bids 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

being let by the state which appe·ared to also invol·,re t.he 

New York Plan. 

Commissioner Levine !las this mor::-dr:.g allayed 

the Court's fears J:;y representing to the C0urt that insofar 

as York College is concerned the state has now agreed to 

implement the bids by follow·ing executive order No. 71 of 

tb.e City of New York, or the :''layor of the City of New York, 

SOUTHERN CIIT~ICT COURT REF'ORTERS, U.S, COURTHOUSE 

FOL.EY SQUARE, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7-880 

0731



1 jwbr 

2 

2 which all parties agree meet the standards at least 

3 of the federal bid conditions, Part 2. Federal bid 

4 conditions, Part 2, are the concH tions "ihich t.'l.e state 

5 assured t."le Ccurt would be met as a rni.ninm.m :i.n Paragraph 5 

6 of the Comm:issione:r.'s letter of ,Tanuary 27i:.'l1 tc the Court, 

7 ,,•hich is attached t.o the Court's order cf Peb.r.uc.ry 24t..'1. 

8 Com_rniss:Loner Levine has also poi:J.ted out that 

9 because of the change of ad:ninistration a::1d the pressure of 

10 even greater: more urgent matters in the Governor's office 

11 and on the Gover::1or personally t.l'lat no r-.ew executi•re order 

12 has heen yet pror:111lgated by the Governor's off. ice relating 

13 to the subject matter of discrimination in employment; t~at 

14 the f':>Overnor' s office is in the process of preparin

.__ 

1'I/~-U4-23; Filed Transcript of Record of Proceedings 


3' ., 

1 jwbr 

3 

2 cbjection to :it... and so fort."'l. 

3 NO\V'' c':lu:r: in'~i the discuss inn J:Jlc.intif:":s I cr;unsel ask d 

4 t.he Commissioner \·;hethe:r. there would be any proble::rs in t.he 

5 Commissioner's i::;s,__1.i.ng letters to the aqenc:i.es affected 

6 by these state policies, to let therr. knov.' wha-t the state 

7 policy was and commissioner Levine indicates -there v.•ere. 

8 Commissi(:>ner, I "Vrould aprrec.iate it for the 

9 record what the letter will cover and to v.•horr, it will go. 

10 COHMISSTONE R IJEVINE: The lett.er will go to all 

11 bid l(~tting agencies, state agencies, authori t:i.es, et cetera r 

12 informing t.herr. of our agreement to use Part 2 bid co:-1/'i tir·ns 

13 as bids conditions on all bids let by state agencies in 

14 t.lte City of New York until such ti!'le the Governor: i::;:':ue;; ;;, 

15 new executive order which will then embody ne'l.v standards 

16 and guidelines on a.ffirmativ·e action. 

17 THE COll'RT: I don't require you to state to 

18 them that that order will require the approval of the 

19 Court. Nevertheless, I am stating, so that none of us 

?n will be ~.i:::led here, that the plaintiffs ~odll have a right, 

21 as I said before, to object if there is anything they 

22 object to. 

C0MMISSIONER LEVINE: 

I will so notify the 

24 Governo:::-'s off.tce. 

26 'rHE COURT: I would ho;:>e the executiv·e order 


FOL.EY SQUM'tE, NEW YORK, H.V. CO 7·4510 

0733



, a 

~ 

$ 

1 

jwbr 

3a 

2 is such that . .it js perfectly ~1atisfactory for everybody's 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 


18 

19 

2n 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

convenience. 


FOLEY SQUAll!!:, NEW YORK, N.Y. CO 7··580 

0734



0735

1976-07-14; Filed Order- Order of2-24-75 is 


jurisdiction- certified 2017-07-25 doc 8 

9-1976-07-14; 

Brennan -Order SDNY 73 CV 4279-3 

IN 'I'HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUHrr~ 

FOP. 'l'HE SOUTHERN DIS'I'HICT OF' NEW ~WRK 

--------------------------------X 

ALBEE 'I' E. PERCY, ~ e,l , , 

-against- 

Plaintiffs, 


Defendants. 

--------------------------------X 

OP.DER 

73 Civ. 4279 (M.E,L.) 

Plaintiffs having requested the Court to extend 

jurisdiction beyond the July 15, 1976 date established by 

prior Order of this Court. dated February 24, 1975, and raaterials 

v,rhich flaid. Order anticipated would be submitted to the Court., 

not having been so submitted, it. is hereby 

ORDERED that. the Orde.r. of February 24, 197 5 is 

amended to the extent that the Court retains jurisdiction of 

th~s action until December 31, 1976, 

Dated: 

New York, New Yo:r:k 

,July /3 , 1.976 

U.S .. D.J.



jurisdiction- certified 2017-07-25 doc 8 

9-1976-07-14; 

Brennan -Order SDNY 73 CV 4279-3 

CEH.'l'Il?lCl\'l'E OF SERVICE 

I certify that a copy of the foregoinq Proposed Order 

was served on counsel for Defendants this 12th day of July, 1976 

by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to: 

Robert Fiske, United States Attorney 

1\t.tn: Dennison Young, Asst., U.S. 

At.torney 

1 St. Andrews Plaza 


Attorney for Federal 

Defendants 

Louis J, Lefkow.i tz, Attorney General, 

State of New Yo~k 

Attn; Arnold Fleischer, A~;st. 


1l\VO 'l:Ycrld Trade Center 


A.·t·torney for Stat.e 

Defendant.s 

¥Val te.r ~~L Colleran, Esq. 

Doran, Colleran, 0 'Hara., Pollio 

& Dunne, P.C. 

1148 }',venue of the .Americas 



Attorney for Privat.e 

Defendants 

Robert G. Benison, Esq. 

Berman, I'aley, Goldstein & 

500 Fifth 1\'JHnue 



Berman 

.l\·1~ torney for Pr iva te 

Defendants 


French, Fink, Markle & ~-icCallion 


New Yor,k, New York 10017 


Attorney for Private 

Defendants



jurisdiction- certified 2017-07-25 doc 8

1976-12-15; Filed Order that Order of Feb 24 1975 is 


jurisdiction -certified 2017-07-25 doc 9 

II~ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COtlR'I' 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEtr~ YORK 

' --------------------------------X 

;: ?\LBERT E. PERCY, et. al ~' 

Plaintiffs, 

ORDER 

73 Civ. 4279 

Defendant.s. 

--------------------------------X 

Plaintiffs having requested the Court to extend 

jurisdiction beyond the December 31, 197 6 Ciat.e est.abJ.ished by 

:( prior Order of this Court dated February 24, 1975, amended 

.,.',,, •..,_.'',,'July 15, 1976 and materials which said Ordc-:r anticipated would 

be submitted to t.he Cour·t, not ho.ving been so submitted, it is 

hereby 

ORDERED that the Orde:r: of February 24, 1975 is 

amended to trw ex·tent that the Court retains jurisdiction of 

:: ·this action until ,Ju1.y l, 1977. 

::·:··;···:-:.;. 

:d:::; 

~: 

: ~ 

~ ;: 

d Dated~ 

l 

New York, Ne•..v York 

December /:3, 1976 

1ur~3ca/l> · 

---·-----·-·---· U.S .D. ,J. ~-----· 

11 

r 

ij 

0739

1977-05-04; Filed Duplicate Orig Minute entrycertified 


From The A-st

1977-07-12; Filed Transcript of Record 5-9-77- 

certified 2017-07-25 doc 12,2017-10-06 doc 23, 

2017-08-09-3 doc 2, 2017-08-09-4 doc 1-6 

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

2 SOOTHER~J DI~~·rRICT OF :Nm7 YO:-U\ 

------------------------------------ 

3 

4 

5 

ALBE~T 

E. PERCY, et al., 

Plaint-.:L'ff:;, 

6 vs .. 

7 

7.l Civ tl?.7'! 

8 

PETER ,T. BHENNAI;J r Sec~ret:u.ry of I,abor ·' ·•:ot a 1 • I : 

10 t1ay 'J, 1977 

10:00 a.n1. 

11 

12 

B E P U 

1 { '"" 

13 

14 

A :r p E A R A T~ c E s : 

T.J i::=; t:.J ... j_cl:. 

15 

FRE!JCH, FINK, f·1!'.RLCJ~E & HC CALLIOT.1, ESQS. , 

ffi Co-Counsel for Board of Urban Affairs 

110 E 42nd Street 

TI New York, N~w York 

ROJE~T J. FIMK, ESQ. 

18 :q}\J..'l'ER H. COL.LERAH f ESQ. I 

19 

LOUIS ,J. Llc~FI\mviT:3, DS0 • 

20 

2 '!orld Trade Ce:1ter 

21 

:N~..~·'.'Ii' York, i.Tew York 

Zl.R>JOJ .. D FLElSCIIJ.::R, I!Sr). , 

~ Assistant Attorney General 

. Z\t.torJ1l.?.~:l c;~neral, St.a+..:c~ ()f ::~rc~v?' ~:\JJ""}~ 

23 li.DRI7-\N P. 1\U ;U\.S, ESQ. , 

Corporation Counsel 

24 City o!: J.::;v: Ybrk 

Municipal Buildi~~ 

25 New York., J,Je.~::' York· 

DI:VERLY GROSS, FSQ. , 

Assista~t Cor~oration Counsel 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS. U,S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUARE. NEW YORK. N,Y, - 791-1020 

0741




2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

2\ P r~ 1~ /\ R J\ :t.I {:; :E S (cont; 'd} 

ROBERT D. FISKE, JR., FSQ., 

United States ~ttornev ~nr t~e 

Southern Qistrict nf New Ynrk 

One St. ?\nclre-vJ' s :r laze1. 

:Je''' YorJ:., nevi York 

Dr:;ru~::ou yrxnrr;, Ei=:0. 

'?1\TRICK H. D.i'\R'I'H I ESQ, • 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ISABE:LLE KA'l'Z PINZLER, ES(!. 1 

National Emoloyment Law Project, Inc., 

42.3 He~~t·~ 118th Stxe




1 

2 

3 

that process ann vJished to be r_,y·c)tectcd bv beinq rtble t:.O 

refer the matter to the ~nurt. 

4 

5 

occurred, as I 

understand it; is that correct? 

6 

:-m. COLLE>lAN: 

Th.A.t:'G correc·L. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

'I'':IE COUR'I': l~.nd the :c:::quJ..:·Iti.o:n'.> v.1' ·ic:h have 

now been develoned by t.he St.ate ~-lilVC:: hr:•·r~~"l dt~vel(:>'Y'":l 

Plaintiff's Counsel has also 

vel 

11 

that at least the pre~ervation 

of the prOJ~sed 

12 

do not prompt the same anxieties on t.he part oF t_;·,_c 

" 

Plaintiffs as they believed miyht have been tho ca~e ~t 

time. 

15 

Undor t~e ci~cumstances of the f~~~ 

16 


exten~ions 

of jurisdiction in the uast no longer senm to 

18 

19 

exist, this case is four years old, that the Major 

propositions wl1ich it was i~ten~cd ~o prcssnt to~~~ 

20 

Court h~ve 

long since been disnosed o¥, and in li 

21 the:: fact. th;'lt -orders hav.~ hee.n issuc~d \·Jhich, in t)tu 

22 ·opinion of thu Court, h.avf~ lastinc:r force and which, 

23 insofar as I know, may be enforced by further return to 

~ the Court if tbe orders are vi0lated, tt is believe0 

~ there is no reason to continue the existence nf t~e ease. 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS. U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUARE. NEW YORK. N.Y. - 791-1020 

0743




1 

2 

It~'s 

in t.:.1e. l)est interests of ju::;tic") 

3 

to dismiss without prejudice such ele~ents 

of the case as 

4 

ha.ve not. been dispose~d 

of ot.het:\\'ise to datr~. 

5 

6 

7 

HH.. YOUNG: Vour Honor r t·.h;1. t incl udc:-s, 

of course, the Federal defendants, I assume? 

r~S. P.Ii~ZJ._~ER: I WOlllc1 ass1.1me so .. 

8 

9 

TIIE COUR'.T.': 

Yes •. 

10 

11 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT REPORTERS. U.S. COURTHOUSE 

FOLEY SQUARE, NEW YORK, N.Y. - 791-1020 

0744




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

·I 

I 

II 

8 I 

i 

UNITED STATCS DISTRICT COUR~ 

SOU'l'IJERN DIS'l'RIC'l' OF Nrm YOn.!\ 

---------------------------------------------x 


VSI> 

Plaintiffs, 

PETER J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor, et al.,: 

73 Civ 4~7




1 n: 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 


18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

A P P E A R A N C ~ S (ccmt'd) 

rwm::n.T n. FISKE, ,JR. , ESQ. , 

United States Attorney for the 

Sou~1ern District of New York 

One St. Andrew's Plaza 

f~et-~ York, New York 

DGIN I scm youm;, E~~o. 

Pll.TEICK H. BAH'l'll, ESQ,. 

Assistant Uni Led Sta tc:s Attorneys 

ISADELLE KA~Z PINZLER, ESQ., 

National Employment Law Project, Inc., 

,12 3 ties t: 118 th c; l:. n::et 


amon'] all oarties lwr




1 

2 

3 

4 

that process and Hished to be nrot.ected by beinry able. to 

refer the matter to the Court. 

In fact, such a voluntary process has not 

occurred, as I understand it; is U1at correct? 

r-m. COLT..EHAN: 

'l'ha t 's correct. 

THE COURT: 

And the requlations which have 

now been developed by the Stat:e have: been dcvolopecl by 

them alone. 

10 

Plaintiff'~; 

Counsel has also indi.cat




1 

rm 

2 

It's in the best interests of justice 

3 to dismiss without prejudice such elf~ments of th;~ cnse as 

4 have not been disposed of otherwise to date. 

5 MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, that includes, 

6 

7 

8 

of course, the Federal defendants, I assume? 

MS. PINZLER: I would assume so. 




i..OI.m~ .J. ~lll(f't(@Win 

~Y?Ol!Smi:V 0Sil'l&li>M. 

DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

TWO WORLD T~ADE CENTER 

NEW YORK, N.'l'. 10047 

~W31>§£o 4611•7111:1 

G~O .. GE 0. ZUCKERMAN 

A~~i®YA~ ATWe .. ~~V ~gW&lO-'>~ 

,.. Cl 

January 5, 1977 

Re: 

Percy v. Brennan 

73 Civ. 4279 

Han. Morris E. Lasker 

United States District Judge 



Foley Square 

New York, N.Y. 10007 

Dear ,Judge Lasker: 

Pursuant to your order of February 24, 1975, and 

your recent order extending jurisdic·tion in this 

matter, the State defendants submit to you herewi·th 

a copy of Governor Carey's Executive Order Number 45 

of January 4, 1977, the effective da·te of which is 

thirty days from the date. of the Executive Order. 

Regulations delineating an affirmative action plan 

irnplementing ·the Executive Order 1;o?'i11 be pronmlgated 

shortly and will likewise be submitted to the Court 

prior to their becoming effective. 

A copy of the affirmative action plan is being 

forwarded simultaneously to counsel for plaintiffs. 

It should be noted, however 1 tha.t counsel for plaintiffs 

were provided a draft of this plan on July 13, 

1976, and the const.ruction trade defendants were given 

a draft by the Industrial Commissioner on December 14, 

1976. 

Very truly yours, 

LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ 


By 

l




NO. 45 

E X ~ C U T I V E 0 R D E R 

'.iVJ1EREAS, it is Lhe •2stablishecl pol icy of th(:"'! StAte of ~Se\',' York 

tro provide equal opportunity in employment and trainil·:g for all perso11s 

w3.thot:.t discri.mi.·;1.a-t.ion on account. of race, creed, color, na::ional oriqin, 

sex, age, disability or marital status, a11d to promote the full realization 

of such cgual 00portunity through affirmative, continuing progcams 

by contractors and t.heir suhcont.ractors in ·the performcui.CS of cont.ract:.s 

Vlith o:c for the State of Nbv York, anu 

1~1HERE~i\S, di.~crirnin.::.ti.on in employTnent by public con:~ractors 

·tends to decrease th.u po::Jl of a'·i.a.ilable l




-2- 

(b) 

ic) 

(d) 

·r11c Ot.3CC may prOF\U lga te~ con t:r:ac L p::::ovi :;;ions coasis tent 

with tl10 pur~o~;E~s and inter1t of this Order, for inclusion 

in every contract and agreement subject hereto. 

The OSCC wilJ. prepare st~r1da~dized forms to be utilized 

by conti-~ctors and by State aqer1cies for notices and 

compliance reports relating tb che oporatlon and implementation 

of the Order. 

The OSCC shall examine the employment practices of any State 

contractor or subcontractor, or direct sucl1 exa~ir1ation by 

the appropriate State agency, to assure the effectuation of 

the policies and purposes of this Executive Order. Where 

such examination is initiated by a State agency, il shall be 

conducted in accordance with procedures established by the 

OSCC and the agency shall report to the oscc any action taken 

or recor:1.mendcd. 

The OSCC shall use its best efforts, directly 2nd through 

C(Jiltracting agencies, otl1e~ governnental. agenci£s, cor1i:raclors, 

and all other available inst~umentalities, to cause any labor 

union whose n1cutb8rs are enqaqed ir1 work under State contractsr 

or any agency or body referring such workers or providing 

apprenticeship or training for or in the course cf such work, 

to cooperate in the imr-:;l.?.s and procedut't::s 

of St:.ate a•Jencies v:ith r.E-:spect: t.c compliance by tf:eE: 

wittt the provisio11s of tl1is Executive Order, and sh~ll require 

them to file performance rc~orts. 

(j) 

The OSCC may direct withdrawal of approval or funding granted 

by any State agency to any affirmative actlon or training 

pr-ogr




2.2 Constr,Jctiorl c:c)ntract- ~ny as defined i11 Sectio11 2.1 

of this Article for the erectl.on~ COll:~truclioJl, recc)nstruction, rc!1abilit~ti.on, 

alteration, conve~si.on, exte11s.ion, repair, landscaping, improvement, 

demolition of build.Lnqsr hi•;hv:ays .. or other rea.l properLy~ 

2 ~ 3 S11bcon ~:ract -· ;_-tny ctgrf::c~men t bc~t:\V(-2-en a con tx t.lc Lor· an·.i any p-::~.rsor 

under wl1ict1 any portion of the contr.~ctor's obli.gation i.s ~,crfor·li:cd, undertaken 

or asse1nwd. 

2~4 Statc-assistrlnce- i11cludes but is not limited to the fo~lowl.nq 

forms of assi.stance accc)r·ded to cc)ntractors or appllGa~ts directly or 

indirectly by the State of New York or any State ~3gcncy: }(Jans; fit1a11cia1 

gt1araJ1tecs: subsidies; gratlts; insurar1ce; tax abateme11ts; tn~ Gxemptions; 

dir rigl1ts; and the sal0, lease, disposition or lease-back of propertyc 

2.5 State agency- all_ agcrlcies of tt1e State., and all flUbl.ic 

benefit corporations, authorities, bureaus, depart1nents, bo~x-ds, 

or other bodies authorized or created by the Stale which operate wl1olly 

withi.n the Slate~ 

2,6 CoDtractiny agency- any StD·te agency wl1lch awards or 

administers a State or State-assistecl contract. 

co~nissions 

2. 7 ~..~cnt.l~act.or - .:lhy bidder for o.r a\IJax-dr:c of a contt·act, a:..; 

defined above, obtained th.t"ough competitive biddinq procedurccs or 

otherwi::~e. 

2.8 Applicant -an~' entity which appljE~s f~r State assistance, 

and .ir'lcludE:'S such applicant aftt?r it becor~tes a recipient of E31lch State 

assistance. 

2. 9 ltf..firmat:ivc: action p_roqrans - prc):-;l·amt: ,·).ppl-O'led or a..doptc~ri 

by the cornmissi.on0.r of lluman Hiqht:::;·t.u assure c.qu~·.l cmploymc~nl 

oppo.rtun:i.ty for m::Lnority· g.r:cn::.p pcx.-son:_; and VlOrncn by SLatt:: and Stat.easnisted 

contractors. Such programs shall iJ1Cl~t3£~~ at ~ mirlimum, 

provi.sions requiring contractors to rnake gtlod fait~~ c~ffcrts to a~l1ieve goals 

and tinr2tables designed to re::l"ct adequate utili?;ation of nJ.nority gt"oup 

persons anc1 '"~\'owen~ 

3~1 Except for cont1·acts exe;n~tcd in accorciancc wlt~t Article V 

hereof, all State co11tractin~ agencies shall include i11 2vcry cor1tract 

hereafter entered into, and the bid documents therefor, the following 

provi:::d.ons: 

{a) TlH:~ contract~or '~\'ill no-:: discriminate a.qainst. c1r:ployc~(:s (')r 

app~_icants for •:'mploynH:::nt bccau~;c of race, c~:eeJ, co:~.or¥ 

national origir1, sex, aqo, disabj_l1t~ or n~ari.tal st~tll~~ 

artd will undertake program~ of ~Ffirrnativc actiotl to insur£~ 

t.hat they are rlf for·dcd cqua.l employment cppo~tuni t j_es 

without discrimination. Such actior1 sl1Al1_ be tater1 witt1 

rt:::fe:cr.;:nco, but not be l_Lrnited -to: rccrl~it.mont, e1nployrnent, 

job assig~roent 1 proGotiOil, U[lgradirlg, dGmotiorl, tran~ferr 

la\'off, c)r termi11ation, ratos of pay or other forms of compe~sc:.tio!l, 

and sel~:!ction for~ trai~.inq or retra:-:__ning, in-- 

. eluding c;pprenticesrli.p and on-U:c-job tral.ni.ng. 

{b) 

If the contLactor is directed to do so by tl1e contracti:1q 

ag~~ncy or tttc Office of State Co11tract Co1npliance (h0renfter 

OSCC) y ~.--he contract:or ~;;hall requost each employment_ c'H:Jcncy, 

labor nn_iont or author·i ~~cd rcpresentati"'.!C~ t";f 1/,rockE~rs v..ri:.:h 

vJhich he hz.ts a collective bo-(getininq or othc!r c~s~recmcnt or 

i.Hic1•.3rstandin(J, to turr~is:1 1Ji.rn \\ 7 ith a wr.j_t_tcn ~::Latt?:me.nc Lllat 

such cmp1.oync:nt asr.:~ncy, luboY union or 1--c:preser!Lat-. .i•..?c 'f,.;i L1. 

not discrim~.Jlato because of rae~, creed, c~olor, nati.onal origitl, 

sex, age, disability o~ n1a~ital status a11d thi~t such labor 

un.Lon or repr~s~n~·ativ~ will affi.rmativ2ly cooper~te ill the 

~nplementation of the contractor's obligations hereunder 

and the purposes of Executive Order 45(1976). 

0752




(c) Th{~ contractor 'dill sj-:Jt.:c, in all solicitationt; or cvJvcr-++ 

t.i.sement.s for cmployercs rjJ.acE'd by ClX on behalf of the 

contractor, that all g~alified applicants will be afforded 

equul employment oppcr~uniti(:;:; \Yi.t.hout discr:i..mination 

because of race, creed, color, national origi11, sex, ase, 

disability or marital status. 

(d) The contractor will comply with all the prov~sions of 

Executive Ord0r 45 (l:rf1) . to interveu; 

and protect the interests of the State of New York. 

3 .. 2 Every Stz1te contract hcrr~a..fter entered into, c:.nd the 

biddi g docurnents thert~f




0754 

- 5 ~ 

Article IV - 

Contract Provisions : State Assisted Contracts 

------ - 

4- l Gach s t.a t,~ agency which ad:ninis ter s a program .i.nvol v i.ng 

State assistance as defined in Section 2.4, shall include in any contract 

entered into with an applicant for State Assistance provisions tbot said 

applicant undertake and agx:•28 to incorporate or c2use to l:Ha incorporated 

in all conlra.cts enterecl into by ttw applJ.cant purmwnt to 'che purposes 

for which the assistance is granted, the provisions 2rescribed LU 

Section 3.1 together with the provisions prescribed in Section 3.2 for 

prospective contractors. 

4. 2 T::ach such contract shall also require the arpLicant t.o 

undertal~c and a9r~e: (l) to assist and cooperate act._L_vely ~rVith the contractir1g 

agency ahd tl1e OSCC l11 obtain:l~g the compliance of COJ1tractcrs 

and subcant:cacto1:s •,.;:ith St1ch provisions; ( 2) to obtain and to .furnj o;h to 

the contracting agency and to oscc such information as they may recruire 

for th~~ supervision o.f such compliance; {3) to carr? out sanct-.ions fot' 

violation oE suci1 obligations~ imposed upo11 contractors and subcontractors 

by t.i'e Cornmissionor of lhlmm-, Rights or t:he contracting agency pu:rsu:mt to 

Article VTT o.f this Executive Order; and (4) to r(:frain from e;;tering into 

any contr




- 6 - 

6~2 All State ag0ncies shall require every con~ractor working 

on a. State or State-assisted contract to file, ,,nd to cause C'Jcl1 of its 

subc:ontrac1:ot:-s to fiJ.e, such pc.r-iodic compliance L{~pox-t-..s as t:J1e Commissioner 

of Human Riqhts may prt;;~;cribc~ by rule or res-Julatior1.. Sta7:.e. aqouci.es shall 

require each StiCh contractor to keep and ma.intain such records pertaining 

to its employment practices as the Corn.F:issioner of n·J.rr:an I?..i~;;hts may prescribe 

by rule or regulation, atld sl1all cause its subcontractors to keep and 

mainta.in such records. 

6. 3 Onder rulGs c.nd regulat.ion:s presccibE~d by the Com.r:.-1issioner 

of fiumari Rights, each agency compliance ()fficer shall make every effort 

.to secure compli,ance •.v'Ji:-.h the contract provisions requir.~d pursuant to 

Articles III




7~2 'T'he Cor.rrnissioner of Human nj'-]hts in a.d~.lition to. or in place 

of the foregoing and without a hearing, may: 

{a) Pub.l.i.::;h or ca.u:::~~ t.o be published the t"lJ:G.i.eS of unions or 

o·th·:::r bodies o.nd orqanizat:Lons vvhicl: tho Commissioner has 

concluded hdvc: interfered w.i.th or imp·2ded cor~:pJ .. i.tutc:e· v~~.i. Lh 

the contract provisions or




- 8 - 

If any part of this Ordqr cr tha npplication there(>( ~0 a~v J?~~r~~o~ 

or circumstances be adjuc1~lE?c1 invalid by a.ny court of cnmpelcnt :ji~rf~dlcti~;n.·, 

such jtldgement sl1all be cor1fin2d in its operation to the part, provision or 

application directly involved ir. t.he cont:r·oversy in which such juocp:1ent 

shall have been render~d and shall not affect or in~air the validity of the 

remainder nf this Executive Order or the application thereof to other persons 

or circumstances. 

Executiv0 Order No. 43r dated January 2·1, 1971, and continu2d by 

Ekecutive Order No. 1, dated JallLJary 1, 1975, is hereby revoked and sup~rs2ded 

by this Executive Order, whicl1 shalJ. become effective thirty (30) days after 

its date. 

GIVEN under my hand and the ~rivy 

Seal of the State at the Capitol 

in the Cl ty of 7'\.lbar::y this fT -rt_. 

yo ... "'..v...o...""'Y, 

day of 'fl.ee0Rlli4i, :l n the year 

of our Lord, o~1e thousar1d nine 

SJl..A-~·-Y\ • 

hundred sevc:ty-..,...,_ 

BY 'l'tlE GOVEH.t:rOR: 

Secretary to the Governor: 





I.OW$ J. !.i!i:l"!iOWI'Tl!: 

M.,-OQ$$!2Y




STATE OF 1;EW YORK 

F.XF.CUTTV£ DEPARTMENT 

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUW1.N RIGHTS 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY i\CTI.\Xi RELATiNG 

TO REGULATl




.. 

REGL'UITIONS OF 'l'HE CC~1ISSIONER OF THE 

, ' 

srrATE DI\/ISION OF Hu1>1AN EIGHTS 

PURSUM1I' TO EXEL'U'l'IVE ORDER NO. 4 5 ( 1977) 

FOR STATE AND STATE-ASSIS'l'ED aJNSTRtX.:TION CONTRtlCTS 

0760




TlillLE OF CONTENI'S 

~ction 1 SCO};)eo "' " " v o o ~ • • o· 11 (I .;, • ., "' .o • 

1 

Section 2 

Coverage •.••..•.........• 

1 

Section 3 

Definitions •............... 

2 

Section 4 Contract provision._s. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3 ,, 

Section 5 corrpliru1ce Reports • • • . . • • . • • . . 

10 

Section 6 Duties of State Agencies . . . . • • . . . . 

ll 

Section 7 Sanction.s and Rerrc-dies • • • . . - • . . . 

12 

Section 8 Separabi.li t:y Clause. . . • . . . . . . . . 

14 

Section 9 Incorporation by Reference . . . • . . . . 

14 

0761




REGUlATIONS- OF '1'"1-IE COMHISSIONER G'F THE 

STATE DIVISION OF IrL1I>1A.N RIGI'fl'S 

PURSUANI' TO EXFCL"TIVE ORDER NO. 45 (1977) 

FOR STATE A"lD STATE-ASSISTED CONSTHOCI'ION CC.l'ITRICIS 

Exercising the authorit}' vested in rre by Executive Order 45 

(1977) and by Section 295.9 of the HurrJan Rights I.av;, I hereby pro.'TlUlgate 

tJ1e regulations set forth below. 

REGJIATIONS OF 'IH.E m•lr 1 USSIONT:F OF THE 

STA'TE DIVISION OF HD1-1AN RIGHI'S 

PURSUANT TO EXB:IJTIVE ORDER NO. 45 (1977) 

FOR S'TATE lli"D S'I'A'l'E-ASSISTEtl OJNSTRUCTION COOTH.i!\C'TS 

Section l. 

The program promulgated here.by is intended to establish minirm..u--n , 

standards for all areas of the Su1te. 1'-l'nere a local governrrerrt re.11Jires 

an affinmti ve action prograrn of construction contractors wi iJ1in its geographic 

area, that program wi.ll be preserved and the rrore stringent conditions 

of the two prograrns will be app1ica.0le. ~'l'here t.he federal 

gDvemrrent rcx:xuires an affirmative action program of construction contractors 

within a given geographic area, t.l-J.e rmre strinqent conditions 

as between the State program and the Federal program will be applicable. 

Where a corrprehensive program has been negotiated by a local goverrment 

togetl1er wiiJ1 appropriate industry 1 labor and minority corrmunity groups, 

the Conroissioner of Hurran Rights, through t.lte Office of Stat.e Contract 

C'..orrpliance (C.SCC) m:-:~y approve that pra




into the contract .in lieu of t,1-te provisions requil-ed in Section 4 hereof, 

as to those trades covered by the exe:rrption, and exeni:>tions will be .reviewed 

perici1ically. 

Sectia.'i 3. 

Definitions 

In addition to the terrrB defined in Executive Order No. 45 

(1977) , for the purpose of these regulations: 

•' 

(a) Contractor - arry person or entity engaged in construction 

under a prirre contract of $50,000 or rrore on a State or State-assisted 

o:::mstruction contract, or who has contracts which, in the current 12.,- . 

m:mth period, tota1 or can reasonably be e:x:~cted to total $50,000 or 

nnre. 

(b) Subcontractor - any person or entity engaged in construction 

under a subcontract of $10,000 or rrore in relation to a State or 

State-assisted construction contract. 

(c) Minority - includes Blacks, Hispa1·1ics (non-European), 

?,sian Americans and Am2rican Indians . 

(d) Buildinq and construction trades - includes but is not 

limited to: electrical workers; carpenters; steamfitters; m:=Lal, wire 

and wood .latl1ers; painters; operating engineers; operating engineers 

(equipmsnt) ; operating engineers (surve:]lOrs) ; plumbers; structural iron 

V.lork.ers; elevator construct.ors; bricklayers; asbestos workers; roofers; 

oman-ental ironworkers; cerrent masons; glaziers; plasterers; tearnst.ers; 

teamsters (ready-mix concrete); rrosaic, tile and terrazzo \




(i) tvtinority and ferrule (sub) contractor or busiJless - any finn 

that .is owned 51 per cent or rrore by warren or by a rrelTber or m2.nbers of a 

minority group. 

Section 4. 

Contract provisions 

Pursu..~'!t to 1\rticles III and IV of Executive Order 45 (1977) , 

every State and State-assisted construction contract and subcontract, and 

tl1e bidding docwrents, or ot.'"ler solid tations of prospective contractors 

tl1erefor, unless exempted w




trade by trade basis and the approxirnate number 

of hours to be worked by ea




(B) Iaoor areas under 500,000 J?Clpulation. 

Contractors and subcontractors er:ciaged~n cor:S truebon 

work in [labor areas other than those identified 

in paragraph ( 1) o£ this subdivision] shall sot fort.h · 

goals of minority workforce utilization within at 

least the percentage ranges which the OSCC shall promulgate 

for those labor areas, wi1ich ranges shall be 

included in tJ1e bid docurrEnt.s. and other solicitations 

of p:rospecti ve contractors for sp:_"'Cifi.c 

const.ru.ctJon contracts. 

(C) 

Implerrentationv 

(i) 'Ihese goals shall express hours of on-t.ltejob 

training and employrrent of minority workers 

as a percentage of the total hours to be worked 

by the contractor's and subc'Ontractor' s entire 

workforce in each building and construction 

trade on all projects (both State and non-St..'l.te) 

in the labor area during the ]Jerfonmnce of its 

contract or subcontract. The ranges established 

for labor areas otl:.er than the labor areas in 

which the State or State-assisted project is 

located shall apply to the contractor's or su..lrcontractor's 

cxmstru.ction activity in such other 

labor area(s) during said perfor:rrance. 

, . 

(ii) All classifications of workers rray be used 

t.o satisfy these goals (i.e., journey'Tren, apprentices, 

helpers, trainees) . 'I'he hotrrs for 

minority work and training nnJSt be S1Jbstantially 

unifonn through the length of the contract, on / 

all projects and for each of the trades. Further, 

the transfer of minority employees or tr;ainees from 

employer-to-employer or from projE~ct-to-project. 

for the sole purr-10se of rreetir1g the contractor's 

or subcontractor's goal shall be a violation of 

these conditions. 

(i.ii) On or before July 1, 1981, cont.ractors and 

subcontractors shall rr:a.l(e good fait'! efforts to 

errploy minority journey1ren, as to their numbers 

and as to hours of utilization, in each building 

and construction trade, in t11e sarre percentage 

as the percentage of minorities in the appropriate 

labor area as defined in Section 3 (f) . 

( i v) In read1ing t."te goals herein, every effort 

shall be rr.-.:Jde to find and Gtploy qualified minority 

journeymen. Ha-:ever, '-"here feasible, apprentices and trainees 

- 5 - 

0766




shall be employed on all projects subject 

to these conditions. 

(v} A contractor or subc:ontractor shall be 

deen-ed in compliance with the foregoing, 

subject to at least anm.13.l review: 

(a) If t:""1e contractor or subcontractor 

can establish that it is a n-ernber of an ernplayer's 

trade association or other enployer 

trade organization whiD""1 has as one of its 

puq:Dses the expanded utilization of minority 

workforce, and that the minority workforce 

ut.i..lizati.on ra.te in that building a."ld c'Onstruction 

trade by all m?.mber employers in 

such association or organization itself rreets 

the goal on the total of all their construction 

projects within t:'le geographic area; 

provided, however, that if the contractor 

or suL'Contractor has denied equal ernplo;{nFnt 

opportunity, it shall not be in con-pliance; 

or 

>: 

(b) If the contractor or subcontractor 

ca..'l establish t:'lat it has a collective bargaining 

agreerrent with a union or other 

enployee organization, Ll-tat it utilizes that 

union or organization as i t.s source for over 

eighty percent of its workforce needs, and 

that the minority workforce utilization rate 

in that buildi.'1g and construction trade itself 

meet...s the goal on all construction projects to 

which the union or orgarrizati.on has referre-d 

individuals within the geographic area; provided, 

boh'ever, that if t.l-J.e contractor or 

subcontractor has denied equal ernployrrent 

opportooity, it shall not be in compliance. 

(vi) Apprentice work hours a'1d paid classroom 

time m:iy be counh .. "JT\ which 

currently m:..~ts t.he State apprenticeship e:rual 

OpiJOrtunity require.rrerrts contained in Title 12 

NYCRR Part 600, including the folla.d.ng require."'Tents: 

(a) The ratio of minority apprentices to 

all apprentices indenturE...'




(b) Advanced statJ.d.ing or credit is granted 

by the apprenticeship program on the basis of 

previou.:;ly acg:uired ex-perience, training, skills 

or aptitude. 

(c) Individuals v.'hose age exceeds the 

established maximum age are adloyme.:nt Service that it 

has ~E~loyment opr)Qrtu:nities available atJ.d shall 

rraintain records of the org.?.nization 1 s response. 

'' 

(B) .M.aint-..ain a file of tlle nane, address and 

social security mmber of each minority a..'!d female 

worker referred from all sources, as well as a record 

of what action was tal




(E) Disseminate the EDJ ]X)licy ex-temally by 

informing and discussing it wit:'1 all rec.ruitrrent 

sources; by advertising in news rredia, specifically 

including minority news rredia; and by notifying and 

discussing it with all sulx..-ontxactors &!d suppliers. 

Make specific recruitrrent efforts directed 

(F') 

at all minority organizations, trade schools, second: 

a.DJ schools, rninority recruitrrent organizations and 

minority training organizations, wi t.l)in tJ1e contractor's 

recruitrn:mt area. 

Continually inventorj and evaluate all 

(G) 

mi.nori ty and ferrale personnel for promo-tion opfOJ:- 

bmi. ties and encourage mi.nori ty &'ld fenule employees 

to seek such opr:ortt.rru ties. 

(H) t




at least as frequent, and in sud1 anuunts, as for 

registered apprent.ice.s, or, where there is no 

apprentice program, consistent vlith the practice 

in t11e indus try for new entnmts • 

(D) The CX)ntractor and subcontractor shall 

atterrpt to -provide cont.inuous employm-::mt for trainees 

after the corrpletion of the contract, to enable thern 

to complete their course of, training. 

(E) The contractor and subcontractor shall 

refer, recomTend and sponsor for union rremr....ership 

any of-its trainees who can perform the duties of 

a qual.i.fied journeyman or INho have l::Jeen certifiE::.'Ci 

by t.he trair1ing pr·ograrn as having successfully 

c.nrrpleted the course of tra.ining. Such trainees 

sl1aJ.l l:::e paid full jon'l-neym:m wages and frinqe 

benefits wneilier or not union rren:bership is grant€.-d 

after such referral, recommendation or sponsorship. 

(F) Where a St.ate or State-assisted c:ontract is 

f€rforrred in the geographic area of a local governrrent 

whid1 administers an on-the-job training program 

in the building and construction trades, the contractor 

shall participate in sum program. 

5. ~1inority and FenlE!:_~e (SuL;) Contractors and Businesses. 

(A) L'Very contractor and Stat.e-assisted applica'1t 

aHar.ded a construction contract in excess of $100 1 000 

shall, w'here practical, rrake gcx:Xl faiU1 effort.s to 

ut.ilize feiTB.le and minority (sub) cxmt.ractors and 

businesses in the perforrrnnce of the contract and in the 

procuren£nt of c~nstruction and relatej materials, as 

well as ill the ancillary services required during c~nstruction. 

(B) r:Very such contractor and applicant shall 

notify the contracting agency that it has tirrely solicited 

at least those qualified minority ent




Fights, or approval of said plan is withdrawn or 

discontinued, said contractor or subcontractor 

shall be dee.m:od to be corrmitted to tf1.e affinr~:~tive 

action requi.rerrents of this section for the rernaining 

[€riod of the contract or subc"ontract. 

2. lilly contractor or subcontractor subject 

to the requirerrents of these conditions \'tho, together 

with the laL--or organization with whom .it has a collective 

bargaining agree.rrent subsequently becones a 

signatory to a negotiated plan in its gec)graphi.c 

area, either individually or through an association, 

rray thereby nt.::et its recp_1i.re.rrents under these provisions 

for any trade cow~rei by such plan if approved 

pursuant t.o Section 1: provided, however, that the 

cscc first determines that said contractor or subcontractor 

is not in violation of these provisions 

and t.hat said contractor or subcontractor, or the 

labo:c organizati.on with whom it has a co1lecti.ve 

bargaining agreerrent is not subject to a court order 

w1der 'l'i tle VII of t.'le 1964 Civil Ri.ght.s Act or under 

Article 15 of the Executive I.a.w or under any State 

or local civil rights law." 

'; 

(d) 

Lartic.ipati.ng in an approved area 

plan, as provided in section 1, the C6CC :may direct 

that the bid concH tions and/or the p:rograrr, as required. , 

therein shall app.1.y in lieu of the reguire.l!2nts of 

sulxl.ivisions (b} and (c) of this section. 

Section 5. 

Conpliance Reports 

(a) Eve.ty contractor performing a Sta·te or State-assisted 

contract shall file/ and shall cause each of its subcontractors to file, 

a conpliance report at least nonthly, in such form a..'ld containing such 

information as the OSCC rray prescribe, including the narre of any supplier 

of gocxis or services of over $10,000 who elTif:.>loys over 50 people. Said 

report shall be filed with trie State contracting agex1e:y within 10 days 

of the close of the reporting per:·iod, and a copy therE...'"Of shall be forwarded 

prorrptly by t. .. lje agency to the OSCC. 

(b) Unless exempted in accordance with J\.rt.icle V of Executive 

Order 45 (1977) , all facilities of the a;ntractor wiG~in ti1e State of 

Ne.-l York shall be included .in sud1 reports. 

- 10 - 

0771




Section 6. 

Duties of State Agencies 

(a) State agencies shall include or cause to be .included in 

every State and State-assisted construction contract and subcontract 

hereafter entered int.o, and the bid docurrents therefor, the folla'




reports on corrpliance as the OSCC n>ay reqtlire. State contr:acting agencies 

shall be responsible for the accurac:j.t of corrpliance reports, and shall 

attest to their veracity in writing through the reside.nt engineer or other 

designated personnel. 

(g) 'Ihe OSC'C m.w assurre or reassurre jurisdiction over any m:'1tter 

referred by it, or may revoke any delegation of duties made by it, to any 

State agency if the OSCC considers it necessarj or appropriate .to the 

ad1ievenent of the purposes of Executive Order 45 (1977). 

Section 7. 

Sa;J.ctions and Re..rredies 

(a) The Com:nissioner of Hurn;.:m Rights shall direct a11d the cont.ract:.ing 

agency shall iirrp:Jse on cont:ractors and subcontractors failing 

to corrply with the contract provisions and the affirrrati ve action. requirenents 

of Executive Order 45 (1977) and these requlations, .such 

sanctior..s and rerredies as the Corrmissioner deems advisable anung those 

specified in Article VII of the order, in accordance wi tJ1 the procedures 

specified herein; provided, however, that where a State-assisted contract 

is awarded by an agency of a local governrrent to t-Jhich Section 1 hereof 

applies, the determination to impose sa.'lctions JTIE.ty, with OSCC approval, 

be n>ade by t."le local qovemme .. '1t for non-compliance w.ith its affirmative 

action pre-gram and such sanct-ions shaLl be in accordance wit.'1 said local 

affirmative action program, as set forth in the o::mtract; and further 

provided that the OSCX: shall in1.X>se the appropriate sar"ctions if the 

local govenrrrent fails to act. 

(b) Cont.ractors shall b(~ responsible for the corrpliance of 

their subcontractors regardless of tier. Failure of it.s subcontractor 

to corrply with the requirenents of Execut_ive Order 45 (1977) or these 

regulations may be grour1ds for the :im;:.)()sition of sactions and 

renedies against a contractor. Contractors and subcontractors may not 

ent.er into any contract or contract nodification with a contractor debarred 

from State and State-assis·te-10 wee.ks 

- 12 - 

0773




to ans-wer the charges against it in writ.L'1g. During 

this r;eriod, OSCC and/or the contracting agency shall 

make reasonable efforts to secure compliance by rret.'lods 

of conference, conciliation, nediation, and persuasion. 

If at the end of said period, the OSCC continues to 

prefer said charges, a hearing ut:on such charges shall 

be held wi L'li.n seven days thereafter by a person 

desi~~lated as a hearing officer by the Commissioner 

of Human Rights in writing for that pUJ:1X)se. The 

hearing officer shall be an attorney licensed to 

practice law .in the State of New York. 'l"'he oon-tractor 

or subcontr.·actor against whom crlarges are preferred 

nay be· represented by col.ll1Sel, and rray sumrron witnesses 

in its behalf. 'Ihe burden of pro vine; non-corrpliance with 

the contract shall be on the OSCC. Conformity to 

ted""Jr,.i.cal rules of evidence shall not be rec.




(d) 'l'he procedures contained in subdivision (c) of this 

section shall apply to the imposition of sanctions against applicants 

for State assistance as provided in surxlivision 4. 3 of Art.icle IV of 

Executive Order 45 (1977). 

Section 8. 

Separability Clause 

_ If any part or provision of these regulatiqns or the 

application thereof t_o any person or circu:rrstances be adjudged .invalid 

by any court of corrpetent jurisdiction, SLlCh judgment shall be confined 

in its operation to the part, provision or application directly involved 

in the controver"9J' in which such judgment shall have been rendered arld 

shall not affect or impair th(~ validity of t'le re.rreinder hereof or the 

application ther·cof to other 1::.ersons or circumstances. 

Section 9. 

Incorporation by Reference 

These regulatiorJ.S shall be cor.sidered to be part of every contract 

and sulx..:ontract s1.1bject. to E:x:ecutive Order 45 (1977), whether or not 

they are physically .incorporah-"'




REGu.Ll{l'IONS OF THE CC1-ltvl.ISSIONFR OF 1'lffi 

STA.."'E DIVISICN OF HllH.Il21 RIGHI'S 

PUPSUA.."T\1I' TO LX.l:DJJ'IVE ORDER NO. 45 (l9Tl) 

FOR S'l'li1'F l\NC STA'Y£'-1~SISTED 

NCN-CQ"'STRUCI'ION CCX'TI'fiJCfS 

0776




TABLE OF CONTENI'S 

Section l - Definitions. • • . . . • . • . . . • • . . • • . . • 1 

Section 2 - Cont~act Provisions. . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . 2 

Section 3 - Corrplim1ce Reports and l

1Y77.-07-12; Filed Transcript of Record 5-9-77- 

certified 2017-07-25 doc 12,2017-10-06 doc 23 

2017-08-09-3 doc 2, 2017-08-09-4 doc 1-6 ' 

077P. 

REGIJLi\Ticii:..JS OF THE (:c:WUSSIONER OF THE 

S'l'ATE DIVtSION OF 1-illMAN RIGH'I'S 

PURSUANT TO EXEDJTIVE ORDER NO. 45 (1977) 

FOR STATE AND S'rATE-ASSISTED NON-C'ONSTROCTION CO!'.'I'RAL"''S 

S'an would 

L·easonab1y be expect




(g) Hinority and female business - any firm that is owned 51 

l_:€rce;·l.t or nnre by wonBJ. or by a rrember or merrbers of a minority qroup. 

Section 2. 

Contract Provisions 

Pm::swmt to Articles III and IV of Executive Order 45 (1977) 

every State and State-assisted contract and subcontract for other than 

construction, except those referred to in sulxlivision (c) of this section, 

and the bidding doctm-e.nt.s or other solicitations of prosp2ctive cont_ractors 

therefor, \mless exerrpted under Article V of said Executive Order, 

shaJl contain sulxlivi.sions (a) and (b) hereof, as follows: 

"(a). h contractor identified as an othen11ise qualified 

lCJ\.'l bidder or prospective contractor must subrnit to the State contracting 

agency prior to the fin.:>l award of t.f-te contract, and prospective subcontractors 

prior to their approval by the agency, a written prc:>.,-varn of 

affirmative action to ensure the opportunity for equitable participation 

of minorib.J group Irerribers and warren in those activities of the contractor 

-which are subject to Executive Order 45 (1977) whidi. includes all it..s 

other non-construction contracts within the State of New York during the 

life of the State contract. No o:mtract !Tiay be awarded tmtil said progra111 

has been approvt:.'ersons and won-en at all levels of e'11- 

ploj'TtBJ.t and in all organizational units. 

A. The (sub) contractor shall rrake eve~-y gcxX:l 

faith effort to attain iT~s goals within the timetables 

prescribed a.'i.d shall institute any or all 

- 2 - 

0779




of tl:',e follo;o:ing affirm::tti ve a.ction steps 

and any others, as may be necesSe..rvisors, 

of their resf:--'On..sibil.i ty to irnplerrent 

the eiTployer' s obligations under tl1is affirmative 

action program; 

- 3 - 

0780




{x) rosting of tL'll2ly notices of all job open 

:Lngs listing qualifications and job duties; 

(B) 'I'he steps listed in tllis subdivision are 

illustrative only and are not intended to lirni.t 

affirnulive action tec'migues that .may be 

necessary to rrodify or expand curre.nt roHcies 

and practices. The contractor shall also elirni. 

nate any practices which are identified as 

cliscriminato1-y. 

(C) Good faith efforts to impleme.nt t~ese affinrati 

ve acd.on steps shall be evaluated during 

the perfonna.nce of t.'le contract with reference 

to the prog-ress made to overcorre a.'ly tu'lderutilization 

identified. 

3. \'mere no 1.mde.rutilizati.on appears as a result 

of the analysis undertaken pursuant to subdivision 1 of 

this paragraph, tl-te (sub) contractor agrees to m-J.intain 

at least it.s current 1evel of utilization of minority 

persons and worren in its workforce. 

4. GeJ1eraL 

(A) 'Ihe affim>tion action program shall specify 

the unions or ot.1ter errployee organizations to ·,~hich the 

{sub) contrac-tor's errplcyees belong. Up:::m request of 

the OSCC, t.l-te (sub) c-ontractor shall provide a co_r,y of 

any curre...'lt agree~rnent wi t-Jl a union or e.Jtployee association 

vJhich affects eirq?lO'.JTiEnt policieS ruJ.d practiCeS 1 

and any nav agreement as negotiated. 

(B) 'Ihe (sub) contractor shall designate a company 

official to effectuate its equal en-ployment opportunity 

ill1d affirnutive action rolicies. 

5. (A) Every contractor and State-assisted 

applicant a>varded a contract for other than construction, 

in excess of $100,000, shall, where practical, 

uti.lize minority and female businesses in the performru1ce 

of tJ1e contract and in rnaterials-su:pply contracts. 

(B) . D.lery such contractor and applicant shall 

notify the contracting agency that it has solicited 

at least those qualified Jni.nority enterprises listed 

by U1e State Department of Con-1!rerce, Office of Minority 

Business Enterprise, and by tJ1e local Regional office 

- 4 - 

0781




of the United States Sm.."'ill Business Adm.inistration 

and shall report, in such fom as 

required by t..>1e OSCC, the results of such 

efforts." 

(c) If the contxact_or or S1Jbcontractor is subject to a'1 

affi:rrrative action program under federal or local law or regulation, 

the C6CC may approve said pro9rarn, in whole or in part, if it rreets 

at least tl:J.e minhnJm standards ccntab1ed herein. In sue~ case, the 

provisions contained in said program shall apply in lieu of the rsquirerrents 

of subdivisions (a) a"1d (b) of this section. 

Section 3. 

(a) Every contractor perfoming a State or State-assisted 

contract shall file, and shall cause each of its subcontractors to file, 

a compliance progress report quarter:ly unless required rrore fregue.'1tly 

by the OSCC, in such form and containing such infornntion as the OSCC 

may prescribe. Said rq::ort shall be filed with tt,e State contracting 

agencJ within 10 days of t..'le close of t..'1e reporting period, and a copy 

thereof shall be forwarded prorrptly by the agency to the OSCC. 

(b) Unless exempted in accordance wi t..'l Article V of Executive 

Order 45 (1977), a11 facilities of the contractor within the State of 

NEW York shall be include-d in such rer-iOrts. 

(c) Ever}' non-exeitpt contractor shall obtaill and keep on 

file for reviEW by the OSCC a separate affirrreti ve action program of 

the form and substance SJ:->ecified in subdivision (b) of section 2 hereof 

for each subcontractor doing substantial business vri th the cont.ractor. 

(d) bvery non-exerrpt contractor and subcontractor shall advise 

the OSCC of all discrbrtination-related consent decrees, court rulings , 

af.Jninist.rati ve fii·1dings and/or conciliation agreerrents pertaining to it, 

and upon request shall rrake copies thereof available to the OSCC. 

Section 4. 

(a) State agencies shall include or cause to be included in 

every State and State-assisted contract ar1d subcontract for other than 

construction hereafter entered into, and t.'le b:i.d doctw.ents therefor, 

the follrJYJing: 

L 'I'he provisions contained in subdivisions (a) through (£) 

of Section 3.1 of ~~cle III of &~ecutive Order 45 (1977); and 

2. 'Ihe pro'i.>isions contained in subdivisions (a) and (b) of 

Section 2 hereof; or, if so directed 1;\J the OSCC pursuant to Section 2 (c) , 

a reference to federal conditions in lieu thereof. 

- 5 - 

0782




J. The provisions contained in Section 5 hereof; acd 

4. The provisions contained in sulxlivisions (a) through (d) 

of Section 3 hereof; and 

5. State-assisted contracts only, the provisions contained in 

subdivisions 4. 2 and 4. 3 of Article IV of Executive Order 45 (1977) . 

(b) State agencies \




or these 

regulatioru;; may be grounds for the imposition of 

sanctions and rerredies against t...l-J.e subcontractor or its contract..or. 

Contractors &'ld sur..-te State of Neh' York. The contractor or subc.'Ont.ractor 

against. •,.,rhom charges are preferred nuy be represe.nted by counsel, and may 

sumron witnesses in its behalf. The bu:cden of proving non-comp.l.iance with 

the contract shall be on the OSCC. Conform.i ty to technical D.lle.s of 

evide.'1ce shall not be required. 'Ihe hearing officer shall rrake a record 

of such hearing wtlich, with h.is or her findings concenung the charges, 

a...'J.d his or her recorrrrendation if cmy concellling sanction.s, shall promptly 

be referred to the Comnissioner for review cmd decision. 

2. Failure of the contractor or subcontractor to rreet its 

goals shall shift to it t.'1e requirerrent to shod tlut it has instituted 

at least the affirmti ve action steps contained in Section 2 hereof and 

that it has made every gcod faith effort t.l-J.ereby to ae:'-lieve corrplicmce 

wit.h t...iJ.e affin!l3.tive action requi.rerrents of the contract and the prCX:;Tarn. 

3. It shall be no excuse for the failure of a contractor or 

subcontractor to rreet its affirrr'ative action obligations that the u1lion 

with which it has a collective bargaining agree..rrent providing for exclusive 

referral or other ag~~c..y or organization utilized for job referrals, 

failed to refer minority enployees. D.iscritni.nation in referral for e.rrr 

ployrrent, even if pursuant to prov.ision.s of a collective bargaining 

agreB'Tent is proh.ibitf .. 'Cl by law. It is State policy that err[.Jloyers have 

a respJnsibility to provide equal enplojm?..nt opportunity if they wish to 

participate in public cont:.racts. To the extent they have delegated the 

- 7 - 

0784




responsibility for some of L~eir ~nployroent practices to a labor orgar~ 

ization or other agency and, as a result, are preve-nted from meeting their 

obligations pursuant to Executive Order 45 (1977), such enplO}'ers cannot be 

considered to be :in conplia'!ce. 

4. P1urrptly after receiving the report of the hearing officer, 

the Com:nissioner shall issue findings and direct t.he it




.··: .. 

!..OVI!il .1, l.~f'~OWS"n! 

A~~~~~v ~~~~~~ 


'PliO WORLD TRADE CENTER 

NEW YORK, N.Y. 1(!0..S7 

'f!IMI~-!1!• 4*11•7412 

April 7, 1977 

G"-Ol'lG~ O. ZUCK!i:RMAI< 

Allllll!III'I'AOI'i' "'M'Ol'>l!>lli:'S' ll!ll!:!>ll!:i'IA8.. 

J:~ t;M&~Gr& $)f!' &il/U,. ftUl~..f'~ S$U&'5t~U 

Re~ 


73 Civ. 4279 

Hon. Morris E. Lasker 




Foley Square 

New York, N.Y. 10007 

Dear Judge Lasker: 

In December, 1976 Your Honor once more extended 

jurisdiction in this action for the purpose, as 

originally set forth in your order of February 24, 

1975, of receiving, reviewing and ruling upon any new 

affirmative action program for public construction 

in New York City entered into by any defendant in 

this action, prior to its becoming effective. 

Accordingly, the State defendants have previously 

submitted to you and to plaintiffs 1 counsel copies 

of both Executive Order No. 45 and the proposed regulations 

for State and State-assisted construction and 

non-construction contracts. 

I have now been advised that the State Division 

of Human Rights has completed public hearings with 

regard to the proposed regulations implementing 

Executive Order No. 45. The period within which 

written comments regarding the proposed regulations 

may be submitted by the public has also been completed. 

The State Division of Human Eights is currently reviewing 

the testimony and comments in order to determine whether 

any of the procedural modifications to the proposed 

regulations suggested therein should be adopted. 





To: 

Re: 



April 7, 1977 

------------2 

Before such changes, if any, are made, and before 

the proposed regulations are officially promulgated, we 

respectfully request Your Honor's comments upon the 

basic approach to affirmative action that is reflected 

in the proposed regulations. If Your Honor concurs 

in the substance of the proposed regulations, it is 

respectfully suggested that an order approving the 

proposed regulations and dismissing this action as 

against the State defendants would be a satisfactory 

resolution of this matter. 

Very truly yours 1 



By 

ADF~pw 

·:.·: 

ARNOLD D. FLEISCHER 


cc: 

Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Esq. 

Robert Fiske, Esq .... .- 

Walter M. Colleran, Esq.~/ 

Robert G. Benisch 1 Esq. · 

Robert J. Fink, Esq., . • 

Beverly Gross, Esq. ·· 

0787




t\.x-:r.~:::=~: 

-) · > · · ·· ·.~ -> 

rrj;;-; (:~::~-:~:;::~::~ t::..:::~ ~- ... ~:* ~- .M. 

-~::;.} ·~- _...... 

~:):z. 

... 0-~....M ·-:; ~ •AY -~ _.t.._, ·:::: 

.;;, ·=•• ~--~, .t. :...~~·:ip:X{:,::, 

,'S ..,_-.., 

~~.;.- :,:.: ~ .•. ' ~ ... 

"' 

,>, 

_,... ..,·_·',.·< 

:."'·.·. 

~ :1-_.·.·. ~ -- 'J",.'.· :~ • ..• ·:.·•.'•• 

~ }.,.'.•_'.




DoRAN, COLLERAN, O'HARA, PoLuo ,s.; DuNNE, P. c. 

,)CIHN L DcJ"RAN 

i-VALTEE M. CoLr.-r:::.RAN 

RICHARD L. O'liARt ... 

BEJ:-:E:DXCT J. POLLIO 

JOHN R DtrNNE 

Ror~r::RT _f._ KBNNJSDY 

T>WMAS J. LlLt.Y 

..i\LBI;RT L. BASES 

1140 _t\VENU:f; 01' TRE A:tYH>HICAS 

NEW YoRK, N.Y. 10036 

212. 08




DoRAN, Cor,LERAN, O'HARA, PoLI,IO & DuNNE, r. c. 

April 13, 1977 


In a similar situation the Court of Appeals of the State 

of New York upheld an action we brought against the City of New 

York invalidating its rules and regulations establishing affinnative 

action programs containing quotas. Broderick v. Lindsay, 

39 N.Y. 2d 6L1-l (1976). A second attenipt by the City was likewise 

ruled invalid (Matter of Fullilove v. Beame, N.Y.L.J., April 

5' 1977)' . 

Under the circumstances recited above we feel it would be 

most inapp:topria.te for this court to act until the validity of 

the·Governorrs action i$ resolved, 


WJv1C:mh 

Halter M. Colleran 

cc: 

Arnold D. Fleischer, Esq. 


Dennison Young, Jr.., Esq. 



Beverly Gross, Esq. 

Page 2 of 2. 

0790




DoHAN, CoLLERAN, O'HAHA,POLLIO & DuNNE, P. c. 

1140 .




DoRAN, CoLLERAN, O'HARA, POLLIO & DuNNE, P. c. 

April 13, 1977 

Hon. .Harris E. Lasker 

In a similar situation the Court of Appeals of the State 

of New York upheld an action we brought against the City of New 

York invalidating its rules and regulations establishing affirmative 

action programs containing quotas. Broderick v. Lindsay, 

39 N.Y. 2d 641 (1976). A second attempt by the City was likewise 

ruled invalid (Matter of Fullilove v. Beame, N,Y.L.J., April 

5' 1977). 

Under the circumstances recited above we feel it would be 

n1ost inappropriate for this court to act until the validity of 

the Governor's action is resolved, 


Walter 1-'L 

Colleran 

cc: 



Dennison Young, Jr., Esq. 

Robert G. Beni.sch, Esq. 


Beverly Gross~ Esq ;· 

Page 2 of 2. 

0792




National Employment Law Project. 

423 West }18th Street 

New 1,.ork, N. Y. 10027 

(212) 866-8591 

April 15, 1977 

Honorable Ivlorris E. Lasker 


Sou·thern District of New York 


Foley Square 


Dear Judge Lasker~ 

Re: P~E.SY• et al. v. BrennEn, et al. 

As an attorney for the plaintiffs in the abovetitled 

action, I am writing t.his letter in response to your 

Honor's recent request for counsels' views on the suggestions 

of the s·tate defendants contained in their April 7, 1977 letter 

relating to the proposed regulations implementing Executive 

Order ·15. 

As we have indicated in letters to Governor Carey 

and at public hearings on the proposed regulations, plaintiffs 

believe that 1 on paper, the proposed regulations for State and 

S·tate-assis·ted construction and non-construction contracts are 

adequate. However, the S1J.fficiency of the proposed regulations 

cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the written document. 

Collateral practical assessments must also be made. In this 

vein 1 it has come to our attention that, to date, no funds have 

been allocated or budgeted for enforcement of these proposed 

regulations. 

Experience has demonstrated that without rigorous 

enforcement activities and watch-dog capabilities even the best 

of affirmative action plans is virtually worthless. Therefore, 

if Executive Order 45 and the proposed regulations are to have 

any actual, beneficial effect on the equal employment opportunities 

of minorities on State and State-assisted construction, 

adequate staff and resources must be allocated for vigorous, 

centralized enforcement activities. 

While it is apparent from both the Executive Order 

and the proposed regulations that enforcement is envisioned, 

neither are clear, in practical terms, as to how it is to be 

effectuated. For example, Section 4(c) (ii) of the proposed 

0793




Honorable Horris E. Lasker 

April 15, 1977 

Page 2 

regulations specifically forbids a contractor to pursue the 

age-old "contract compliance" game of moving a single minority 

employee from job site to job site solely for purposes of 

paper compliance. Without adequate enforcement capabilities 

this and similar practices cannot be discovered and ended; 

mere delegation of the duty for on-site inspection to a contracting 

sta·te agency is not sufficient to ensure compliance 

wi·th the terms and intent of the proposed regulations. 

Similarly, proper allocation must be made for the training of 

a staff large enough to review both the proposed affirmative 

ac·tion plans of apparent low bidders and the contract recipient's 

monthly compliance reports with skill and sophistication. Thus 

plaintiffs cannot accept the proposed regulations as fully 

adequate to ensure equal employment oppor-tunities in the construction 

trades for minorities in New York City without better 

provision for enforcement. 

Second, the State defendants indicate in their letter 

that procedural modifications to the proposed regulations may 

be adopted. It would appear that the proposed regulations 

reviewed by plaintiffs and by this Court are not the regulations 

which are ·to be officially promulgated. Because plaintiffs 

have no knotdedge of the content of the procedural modif ications 

being considered by defendants nor how such modifications 

might affect the regulations, they obviously can make no final 

coinment as to the adequacy of the proposed regulations. Indeed, 

this cour·t tvould appear to be similarly handicapped. 

For the above reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request 

that an order approving the proposed regulations and dismissing 

this action not be issued at this time and that the State 

defendants be requested to submit any modified regulations to 

the plaintiffs' attorneys and to this Court prior to promulgation. 

Cc 


Dennison Young, Jr., Esq. 






,~'w'- • r-1 j /2 

(/JiwJtet >£1· ~~ 

Diana H. Greene· 


0794




1.01.1 I$ .1. f..ijtf"!ltOW IT'll 

ATTOA~~y G~~~~A~ 

STATE OF NEW YORK 


TWO WORLD TRADE CENTER 

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10047 

Ti!~l>-i!fllh 4811•7412 

April 28 1 1977 

GEORGE D. ZUCKERMA~! 

A~~RSTA~~ AYTOft~~V G~N~ftA~ 

~~ O::l< .. li!G& o..- CIVIL RIOM"ft! l!lUIIIIII:"Y 

Re~ 


73 Civ. 4279 

Hon. .Morris E. Lasker 




Foley Square 

New Yorki N.Y. 10007 

Dear J'udge J~asker: 

I am writing to con~ent upon the letter of 

''~!alter f-!1. Colleran, Esq. P dated A,pril 13, 1977. 

It is the viev.• of the State defendants ·that your 

Honor 1 s review of the propose~d regulations implementing 

Executive Order No. 45 is and should be unaffected by 

the pending challenge in State court to the Executive 

Order. Such review arises out of the issues presented 

in this case, ls contemplated by your Honor's Order of 

February 24, 1975, and is the specific purpose of. the 

several extensions of jurisdiction that have been 

ordered herein. 

ADF :pV>l 

cc: 

Isabelle Katz Pinzler 8 Esq. 

Dennison Youngr Jr., Esq. 


Robert G. Benisch 9 Esq. 

Robert J. Fink, Esqo 


Very truly yours 1 


A-ttorney General 

By 

,.(::: 

Affi~OLD D. FLEISCHER 






DoRAN, CoLLERAN, O'HARA, PoLLIO & DuNNE, 1''. c. 

... JouN L DonA,~ 

'1\f...U.TER M. COLLERA.N 

H.lCB.ARD L O'HARA 

Br;;NBDICT lJ. PoLLIO 

JoJ.\:.."J R. DtTN}




DoRAN, CoLLERAN, O'HARA, Por.uo & DuNNE, P. c. 

May 2, 1977 

-2- 

Ron. Morris E. Lasker 

Clearly, Executive Order No. 45 and the rules promulgated 

thereunder issued by Governor Carey. does not fall into this category, 

and -v.;re seriously questlon the jurisdiction of this Court 

· to act in the premises, particularly under the allegations of 

the original complaint herein, 

Very truly yours , 

V.JMC: am 

Walter M. Colleran 

cc: Arnold D. Fleischer, Esq. 

Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Esq, 

Dennison Young, Jr. , Esq. 



Beverly Gr.oss, Esq. 

0797

Settlement Executive Order 45 (9 NYCRR 3.45) Docket 99 17-2273 Appendix 1, Volume 3 pages 749-757, 758-785, 786, 795

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?