Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599 (2015)

Citation
Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599 (2015)
Parent Document
Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599 (2015)
Effective Date
2015-11-17

Other Sections in This Document (839)

Full Text

853 chars
Another memorandum from Fields to PR-NPSC employees, dated December 30, 2008, explained the reasons for the facility’s closure in more detail. First, NPSC call volume had decreased since 2004 in light of the availability of Internet self-service options. Second, SpanishJanguage calls in particular had become an almost negligible portion of the NPSC workload. Third, the PR-NPSC facility was “not *605suitable to serve as a long-term NPSC operation” because it “was never outfitted with modern systems furniture and the supporting electrical infrastructure and some of the critical telecommunications equipment needed to support future technology upgrades.” In sum, “[t]he estimated relocation and annual operational expenses associated with a new facility [were] not justified based on historical and anticipated NPSC workload.” II. Procedural History