Attachment 6 EDNY Hodge v Cuomo 21-cv-01421 Complaint

Case 1:21-cv-01421-NGG Case MDL No. 3011 Document 1 25-6 Filed 03/17/21 Filed 06/24/21 Page 124 Page of 124 154 of PageID 154 #: 380
721. It is not just a coincidence that a relationship that the Alternative Employment Practice
has had with SUNY Maritime going back over 25 years, and other arms of State
Government Agencies have blocked the viability of the Alternative Employment Practice.
722. Percy will not be dissuaded, and brings this action under the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871,
now referred to as 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq, to assert denial of constitutional rights to
property, not the least of which is the property right in skills and knowledge being denied
to persons identified by Judge Lasker in Percy v. Brennan as a class of people wanting to
work, but being denied the opportunity, an opportunity that was addressed by providing
the solution by Governor Executive Order 45, but a solution that was declared
unconstitutional, and enjoined because the Governor did not and has not for these many
years, sought legislative approval.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 42 U.S.C. §1981 FOR RACIAL, OR
OTHERWISE CLASS-BASED INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATORY ANIMUS
BY THE PARTY-IN-INTEREST AND OWNER OPERATOR
DEFENDANTS
723. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth
herein.
724. This Complaint is also on behalf of a sub-class of the Class herein involving liability of
the Owner Operator Defendants for unlawful discriminatory employment practices.
Intervention Pg. 133 Par 319.
725. The Class Plaintiffs on behalf of the Percy sub-class states a claim of conspiracy pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), alleging that “racial, or otherwise class-based, invidiously
discriminatory animus lay behind the defendants’ actions, and has set forth facts from
which a conspiratorial agreement between the defendants can be inferred.” Intervention
Pg. 133 Par 320.
726. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) creates a private right of action for recovery of damages “if two or
more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving, either
directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons in the equal protection of the laws. . . .”
Intervention Pg. 133 Par 321.
727. Failure to adopt the Alternative Employment Practice, while at the same time using the
Plan whose purpose included employee benefits of apprentice training and continuing
education as an Alternative Employment Practice develop skills, the Plan was used as a
front to cover the Owner Operator Defendants diversion, conversion and embezzlement
of funds intended for a Plan which is the alternative employment practice.
728. The Party-in-Interest Defendants and Owner Operator Defendants, aided by the State
Officer Defendants, conspired to interfere with the Classes’ property rights in skills and
opportunities, rights and privileges in the Alternative Employment Practice, protected
124