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)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3155371/abril-rivera-v-johnson/ ↗

Full Text

1,202 chars

Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that the 2008 review findings that were necessary for re-occupancy of the PR Center were minimal.17 These included conducting a fire watch in the building during occupancy, removing magnetic locks from exit doors, removing all storage in the egress corridors, updating and practicing the Occupant Emergency Plan, installing a secondary egress man-gate on the perimeter fence at the rear of the building, adding additional fire extinguishers, and obtaining fire hydrant flow test information. Crucially, the 2008 review report did not recommend closing the PR Center or reducing its capacity by implementing the rotational, staffing plan. And, by July 2008, the concerns identified in the May 2008 review— which Plaintiffs insist were not life threatening- — had already been resolved. In sum, even assuming the validity of FEMA’s business necessity to assure the safety of its employees, a jury could reasonably agree with Plaintiffs’’ compelling dispute of FEMA’s justification for denying their alternative option to the rotational staffing plan, which was to reoccupy the PR Center’s premises and continue working. B. The Newly Discovered Reduction of Operational Needs

Other Sections in This Document (839)

Full Text