Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/44

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1316

FRANCI SCO ABRI L- RI VERA, ET AL. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

and

MADELI NE AGUAYO, ET AL. ,

P l a i n t i f f s ,

v.

J EH J OHNSON, Secr et ar y of t he Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y;UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURI TY; FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Lynch, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Adr i ana G. Snchez- Par s, wi t h whom l var o R. Cal der n, J r . ,Fr anci sco J . Or t i z- Gar c a, and l var o R. Cal der n, J r . L. L. P. LawOf f i ce wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.


2/44

Adam C. J ed, Appel l at e St af f At t or ney, wi t h whom J oyce R.

Br anda, Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Rosa E. Rodr i guez-Vel ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, and Mar l ei gh D. Dover , Appel l at eSt af f At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

November 17, 2015


3/44

- 3 -

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The Feder al Emer gency Management

Agency ( FEMA) i s an agency wi t hi n the Depar t ment of Homel and

Secur i t y ( DHS) t asked wi t h assi st i ng "St at e and l ocal gover nment s

i n car r yi ng out t hei r r esponsi bi l i t i es t o al l evi at e t he suf f er i ng

and damage t hat r esul t f r om maj or di sast ers and emer genci es by, "

among ot her t hi ngs, " [ p] r ovi di ng Feder al assi st ance pr ogr ams f or

publ i c and pr i vat e l osses and needs sust ai ned i n di sast er s. " 44

C. F. R. 206. 3; see al so 42 U. S. C. 5174( a) ( 1) ; Exec. Or der No.

12673, 54 Fed. Reg. 12, 571 ( Mar . 23, 1989) . Pur suant t o t hi s

mi ssi on, FEMA has est abl i shed cal l cent er s, whi ch pr i mar i l y

r ecei ve cal l s f r om t hose af f ect ed by di sast er s, and Nat i onal

Pr ocessi ng Ser vi ce Cent er s ( NPSCs) , whi ch bot h r ecei ve cal l s and

pr ocess cl ai ms.

Pl ai nt i f f s wer e empl oyees of t he now- cl osed Puer t o Ri co

NPSC ( PR- NPSC) r un by FEMA. They f i l ed t hi s Ti t l e VI I l awsui t

al l egi ng t hat FEMA' s act i ons i n i mpl ement i ng a r ot at i onal st af f i ng

pl an at t he PR- NPSC and i n event ual l y cl osi ng t he f aci l i t y

di scr i mi nat ed agai nst t hem on t he basi s of t hei r Puer t o Ri can

nat i onal or i gi n and const i t ut ed unl awf ul r et al i at i on f or pr ot ect ed

conduct . The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment t o

def endant s, f i ndi ng t hat def endant s had l egi t i mat e,

nondi scr i mi nat or y r easons f or t hei r act i ons and, wi t h r espect t o

t he r ot at i onal staf f i ng pl an r et al i at i on cl ai m, t hat pl ai nt i f f s


4/44

- 4 -

had not shown a causal l i nk between t hei r pr ot ect ed conduct and

t he pur por t ed r et al i at i on.

We af f i r m t he di smi ssal of t he case. We hol d t hat

pl ai nt i f f s' di spar at e i mpact cl ai ms f ai l because t he chal l enged

act i ons wer e j ob- r el at ed and consi st ent wi t h busi ness necessi t y,

and pl ai nt i f f s have not shown t hat t her e wer e al t er nat i ves

avai l abl e t o FEMA t hat woul d have had l ess di spar at e i mpact and

ser ved FEMA' s l egi t i mat e needs. Bot h r et al i at i on cl ai ms f ai l

because pl ai nt i f f s have not shown t hat t he al l egedl y adver se

empl oyment act i ons wer e causal l y rel ated t o any pr otect ed conduct .

I . Backgr ound

We r eci t e t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

pl ai nt i f f s. See Ram r ez- Ll uver as v. Ri ver a- Mer ced, 759 F. 3d 10,

13 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . I n 1995, FEMA est abl i shed a " t empor ar y cal l

cent er " i n San J uan, Puer t o Ri co t o addr ess cal l s f r om Spani sh-

speaki ng vi ct i ms of Hur r i cane Mar i l yn. The cal l cent er was l ocat ed

i n a vacant manuf act ur i ng pl ant i n Puer t o Ri co under a di sast er

l ease and was or i gi nal l y desi gned t o be onl y a t empor ar y f aci l i t y.

Because t he cent er "was never i nt ended . . . t o ser ve as a l ong-

t er m NPSC oper at i on, " i t "di d not have many of t he ameni t i es t hat

t he agency woul d normal l y seek when est abl i shi ng a l ong- t er m, f i xed

si t e f aci l i t y. "

I n 1998, t he cent er began pr ocessi ng cl ai ms as wel l as

r ecei vi ng cal l s, and i n 2003 i t became t he f our t h f ul l - f l edged


5/44

- 5 -

NPSC ( t he t hr ee ot her s ar e i n Mar yl and, Texas, and Vi r gi ni a) . The

PR- NPSC was t he onl y f ul l y bi l i ngual NPSC. FEMA made some l i mi t ed

i mpr ovement s t o the Puer t o Ri co f aci l i t y when i t became a NPSC,

but i t st i l l l acked t he "st at e of t he ar t f ur ni t ur e and equi pment "

f ound i n t he other NPSCs.

I n 2006, several groups of PR- NPSC empl oyees compl ai ned

t o management t hat t hey were bei ng pai d l ess t han t hei r mai nl and

count er par t s. When no r esol ut i on was r eached i n t hei r cases,

pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed wi t h t he Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y ( EEO)

Of f i ce an i nf or mal compl ai nt of di scr i mi nat i on i n Oct ober 2006 and

a f or mal compl ai nt of di scr i mi nat i on i n Apr i l 2007. I n May 2007,

an empl oyee f i l ed wi t h t he EEO a cl ass compl ai nt on behal f of one

gr oup of empl oyees. The cl ass compl ai nt was di smi ssed i n 2008. 1

I n J une 2007, FEMA' s Occupat i onal , Saf et y & Heal t h

Of f i ce conduct ed a Management Eval uat i on and Techni cal Ass i st ance

Revi ew ( METAR) of t he PR- NPSC f aci l i t y. 2 The METAR di scl osed

1 Pl ai nt i f f s st at e t hat t he FEMA admi ni st r at i ve j udgeover seei ng t he cl ass compl ai nt or der ed cer t ai n pl ai nt i f f s "t oi ndi vi dual l y r e- f i l e t hei r [ pay] cl ai ms, whi ch t hey di d l at er on. "However , pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o no evi dence t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s di di n f act r e- f i l e any cl ai ms af t er May 2007.

2 29 C. F. R. 1960. 25( c) r equi r es annual i nspect i ons off eder al wor kpl aces "t o ensur e t he i dent i f i cat i on and abat ement ofhazardous condi t i ons. " The PR- NPSC had not been i nspect ed on anannual basi s bet ween 2003 and 2007, and t he r ecord contai ns noexpl anat i on f or t hi s f ai l ur e. Ther e i s no cl ai m, however , t hatt he ot her NPSCs have not been si mi l ar l y i nspect ed. I ndeed, t heMaryl and NPSC was i nspect ed i n May 2008, t he Vi r gi ni a NPSC i n J une2008, and t he Texas NPSC i n Apr i l 2009.


6/44

- 6 -

sever al "ser i ous def i ci enci es, " i ncl udi ng, f or exampl e, a l ack of

exi t si gns at sever al l ocat i ons i n t he f aci l i t y and t he absence of

"[ i ] ni t i al saf et y or i ent at i on t r ai ni ng. " Sever al of t he

def i ci enci es wer e r at ed as "[ s] i gni f i cant r i sk[ s] t o heal t h and

saf et y" f or whi ch "abat ement measur es shoul d be i ni t i at ed wi t hi n

30 days. " The management of t he Puer t o Ri co cent er r esponded wi t h

a memorandum acknowl edgi ng r ecei pt of t he r epor t and expl ai ni ng

t he st eps t hat t he PR- NPSC had t aken and woul d t ake t o begi n t o

r ect i f y t he def i ci enci es. By May 2008, management r epr esent ed

t hat i t had addr essed t he maj or i ssues i dent i f i ed on t he METAR

save one: t he const r uct i on of an egr ess r out e ar ound t he bui l di ng. 3

Management was st i l l concer ned about t he physi cal f aci l i t y and

par t i cul ar l y f i r e hazar ds.

PR- NPSC management ar r anged f or a mor e speci f i c Fi r e

Pr ot ect i on and Li f e Saf et y Code r evi ew of t he f aci l i t y i n May 2008.

Thi s r evi ew was ar r anged t o addr ess f i r e saf et y i ssues i dent i f i ed

i n t he 2007 METARi n advance of t he expi r at i on of t he f aci l i t y' s

l ease i n Sept ember 2008. That i nspect or f ound sever al pr obl ems

and pr oduced an ext ensi ve "Li st of Saf et y & Heal t h I t ems t o be

3 PR- NPSC management cont act ed t he cent er ' s l andl or dr egar di ng const r uct i on of an egr ess r out e ar ound t he f aci l i t y, butt he l andl ord r esponded t hat t he bui l di ng met " t he mi ni mumr equi r ement s under t he [ Amer i cans Wi t h Di sabi l i t i es Act ] and [ t hel andl ord was] t her ef ore not r equi r ed t o make these i mpr ovement s. "PR- NPSC management st at ed i n i t s r esponse t o t he METAR t hat t heywoul d "r equest aut hor i zat i on and f unds f or t hi s pr oj ect , si nce i tcont i nue[ d] t o pose a saf et y i ssue. "


7/44

- 7 -

Compl et ed f or Faci l i t y t o Become Ful l y Accept abl e. " To name j ust

a f ew exampl es, t he bui l di ng di d not have an aut omat i c f i r e

spr i nkl er , wor ki ng f i r e al ar ms, or a suf f i ci ent number of exi t s.

The i nspect or al so not ed t hat t he r oof of t he f aci l i t y coul d not

wi t hst and a Category 3 st orm.

On May 16, 2008, Kat hy Fi el ds, t he Br anch Chi ef f or NPSC

Oper at i ons, not i f i ed t he empl oyees of t he PR- NPSC t hat , " [ b] ecause

t he saf et y and secur i t y of our empl oyees i s our t op pr i or i t y, i t

i s necessary to suspend oper at i ons at t he PR NPSC unt i l t he

i dent i f i ed f i r e and l i f e saf et y def i ci enci es ar e cor r ect ed. " FEMA

pl aced i t s empl oyees on admi ni st r at i ve l eave and cont i nued payi ng

t hem unt i l J ul y 18, 2008. The f aci l i t y was not occupi ed f r om May

16, 2008, t o mi d- J ul y 2008. I t l at er r esumed oper at i ons, wi t h a

l i mi t ed staf f .

I n l i ght of t hese ongoi ng concer ns, FEMA "det er mi ned

t hat t he cost of r epai r i ng and/ or r el ocat i ng t he f aci l i t y

necessi t at ed a cr i t i cal r evi ew. " Fi el ds began consi der i ng t he

opt i on of cl osi ng t he PR- NPSC upon expi r at i on of t he l ease. As

expl ai ned i n a May 19, 2008, e- mai l :

[ Fi el ds' ] mai n r at i onal e f or cl osur e i s

t hat t he Agency no l onger r equi r es t he l ar geSpani sh- l anguage capaci t y i t i s car r yi ng att he NPSC' s. Al so, t he over al l need f orper sonnel at t he NPSC' s has l essened.Fur t her , t o t he ext ent Spani sh- l anguage NPSCempl oyees are needed, t hi s can pr obabl y beaccommodat ed at t he ot her NPSC' s i n Texas,Mar yl and and Vi r gi ni a. Last l y, t he l ease f or


8/44

- 8 -

t he Puer t o Ri co NPSC i s about t o expi r e - - sot hat ' s why she' s t hi nki ng t hr ough t hese i ssuesnow. . . .

The l ast bi g Puer t o Ri co di sast err equi r i ng a l ar ge capaci t y of Spani sh- l anguageempl oyees i n t he NPSC' s was Hur r i cane Geor gesi n 1998.

Si nce t hat t i me t he need f or Spani sh-l anguage per sonnel at t he NPSC' s has beenst eadi l y decl i ni ng. Essent i al l y, t he Agencyhas been car r yi ng a l arge Spani sh- l anguagecapaci t y at t he NPSC' s f or some t i me at a l evelt hat ' s great er t han needed.

Fi el ds ci r cul at ed a repor t out l i ni ng her r ecommendat i ons

and her r easoni ng t o sever al seni or FEMA of f i ci al s on May 23, 2008,

as t o shor t - t er m and l onger - t er m opt i ons. 4 The r epor t expl ai ned

t hat t he i mmedi ate r epai r s necessary t o t emporar i l y r eoccupy t he

bui l di ng unt i l t he end of t he l ease woul d cost $75, 000, whi l e t he

l onger - t er mr epai r s necessar y t o per manent l y r eoccupy t he bui l di ng

woul d cost $525, 000. These est i mates di d not i ncl ude t he cost of

a new r oof , whi ch t he r epor t not ed was al so needed.

However , t he l ease on t he f aci l i t y woul d expi r e at t he

end of Sept ember 2008, unl ess t emporar i l y ext ended. As i t was,

FEMA occupi ed t he f aci l i t y unt i l Febr uar y 2009. A new f aci l i t y

woul d have cost FEMA near l y $9 mi l l i on up f r ont and woul d have had

an annual oper at i ng cost of appr oxi mat el y $19 mi l l i on. The r epor t

concl uded t hat , because t he r emai nder of t he NPSC syst em had t he

4 The f i nal deci si on on whet her t o cl ose t he cent er rest edwi t h t he DHS Secr et ar y, but i t was t he r esponsi bi l i t y of seni orFEMA of f i ci al s t o br i ef t he Secr et ar y on t he i ssue.


9/44

- 9 -

capaci t y to absorb t he PR- NPSC' s wor kl oad, t hese pot ent i al

expenses wer e not j ust i f i ed, and i t was pr ef er abl e t o si mpl y l et

t he f aci l i t y' s l ease expi r e and not bui l d a new f aci l i t y. The

r epor t al so i ncl uded a l i st of opt i ons f or addr essi ng t he PR-

NPSC' s def i ci enci es t hat had been consi der ed and r ej ect ed.

Davi d Gar r at t , FEMA' s Deput y Assi st ant Admi ni st r at or ,

t he pr i nci pal r eci pi ent of t he r epor t , r esponded t o Fi el ds t hat he

"agr ee[d] wi t h t he r ecommendat i on and suppor t i ng l ogi c. " He st ated

t hat he woul d f orward t he r epor t t o FEMA' s Deput y Admi ni st r ator .

On J ul y 15, 2008, Fi el ds sent a memorandum t o al l PR-

NPSC empl oyees expl ai ni ng t hat , based on FEMA' s r evi ew of t he

i nspect i on r esul t s, FEMA had deci ded i n t he shor t t er m" t o cont i nue

maki ng r epai r s t o the f aci l i t y and, " whi l e t hat was done, "t o

r esume oper at i ons wi t h a reduced st af f suf f i ci ent t o ensur e

r eadi ness i n t he event di sast er act i vi t y war r ant s i ncr eased

st af f i ng l evel s. " The memorandum announced a new st af f i ng pl an,

whi ch i nvol ved havi ng appr oxi mat el y 15- 20 empl oyees ( out of a total

of ar ound 300) wor k at a t i me, on a r ot at i onal basi s. Thi s

r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an, Fi el ds expl ai ned, was "expect ed t o

cont i nue t hr ough t he end of cal endar year 2008; a deci si on on t he

l onger - t erm f ut ur e of t he PR- NPSC ha[d] not yet been made. " FEMA

pl aced PR- NPSC empl oyees who wer e not wor ki ng on "non- dut y, non-

pay st at us ef f ect i ve J ul y 19, 2008, " but vol unt eer ed t o "make ever y


10/44

- 10 -

ef f or t t o assi st " empl oyees who wi shed t o t r ansf er t o one of t he

ot her NPSCs. 5

FEMA compl et ed " [ c] r i t i cal r epai r s" t o keep t he PR- NPSC

open i n Oct ober 2008, whi ch al l owed t he cent er t o operat e at an

"expanded, but st i l l l i mi t ed capaci t y, " "subj ect t o cont i nued

i mpl ement at i on of [ cer t ai n] l i f e saf et y measur es. "6 By t hi s t i me,

t he FEMA Admi ni st r at or had deci ded t o cl ose t he PR- NPSC

permanent l y, and so r ecommended t o DHS. The DHS Secr et ar y agreed

on December 10, 2008, and t he cl osur e and t he el i mi nat i on of al l

posi t i ons at t he PR- NPSC were announced, i ncl udi ng t o PR- NPSC

empl oyees, on December 30, 2008. I n an e- mai l t he next day, t he

FEMA Admi ni st r ator expl ai ned:

[ W] e car ef ul l y consi der ed al l avai l abl eopt i ons bef or e maki ng t he deci si on t o cl oset he Puer t o Ri co NPSC. I t was det er mi ned t hat

5 I n t he mont hs f ol l owi ng t he i mpl ement at i on of t her ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an, sever al PR- NPSC empl oyees f i l ed EEOcompl ai nt s r egar di ng t hat pl an, al l egi ng t hat FEMA wasdi scri mi nat i ng agai nst t hem on t he basi s of nat i onal or i gi n. Pl ai nt i f f s asser t t hat t hese compl ai nt s wer e f i l ed bet ween J ul y2008 and December 2008, whi l e def endant s' br i ef r ef er s onl y t o"August 2008 EEO compl ai nt s. " However , nei t her pl ai nt i f f s nordef endant s pr ovi de a r ecor d ci t at i on t o suppor t t hei r cl ai m aboutt he t i mi ng of t he compl ai nt s. Based on t he r ecor d, i t i s not cl earwhen t he f i r st compl ai nt s wer e f i l ed, but an Oct ober 8, 2008, e-mai l f r omKat hy Fi el ds demonst r ates t hat over 300 compl ai nt s aboutt he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an had been f i l ed by t hat dat e. The PR-NPSC EEO speci al i st sent a l i st of quest i ons r egar di ng t heempl oyees' compl ai nt s t o t he management of t he PR- NPSC i n Oct ober2008. The par t i es' br i ef s do not say whet her any of t hesecompl ai nt s wer e r esol ved pr i or t o t he f i l i ng of t hi s l awsui t .

6 The r ecor d does not ref l ect t he t erms under whi ch FEMAcont i nued t o occupy t he bui l di ng af t er t he expi r at i on of t he l easei n Sept ember 2008.


11/44

- 11 -

t hi s f aci l i t y, or i gi nal l y establ i shed onl y t oser ve a temporary mi ss i on, no l onger has anoper at i onal r equi r ement . Addi t i onal l y, and i nvi ew of t he i nadequacy of t he exi st i ngf aci l i t y, FEMA det er mi ned t hat i t woul d not bea sound i nvest ment t o r epai r or r el ocat e t hePuer t o Ri co NPSC t o a new f aci l i t y.

The Admi ni st r at or r ei t er at ed Fi el ds' st at ement t hat FEMA woul d

assi st PR- NPSC empl oyees i n seeki ng another posi t i on wi t hi n FEMA.

Some PR- NPSC empl oyees di d i n f act t r ansf er t o a di f f er ent NPSC

f a c i l i t y .

Another memorandum f r om Fi el ds t o PR- NPSC empl oyees,

dat ed December 30, 2008, expl ai ned t he r easons f or t he f aci l i t y' s

cl osur e i n mor e det ai l . Fi r st , NPSC cal l vol ume had decr eased

si nce 2004 i n l i ght of t he avai l abi l i t y of I nt er net sel f - ser vi ce

opt i ons. Second, Spani sh- l anguage cal l s i n par t i cul ar had become

an al most negl i gi bl e por t i on of t he NPSC wor kl oad. Thi r d, t he PR-

NPSC f aci l i t y was "not sui t abl e t o ser ve as a l ong- t er m NPSC

oper at i on" because i t "was never out f i t t ed wi t h moder n syst ems

f ur ni t ur e and t he suppor t i ng el ect r i cal i nf r ast r uct ur e and some of

t he cr i t i cal t el ecommuni cat i ons equi pment needed t o suppor t f ut ur e

t echnol ogy upgr ades. " I n sum, " [ t ] he est i mat ed r el ocat i on and

annual oper at i onal expenses associ at ed wi t h a new f aci l i t y [ wer e]

not j ust i f i ed based on hi st or i cal and ant i ci pat ed NPSC wor kl oad. "

I I . Pr ocedur al Hi stor y

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hi s l awsui t i n October 2009, al l egi ng

t hat def endant s engaged i n di scr i mi nat i on on t he basi s of nat i onal


12/44

- 12 -

or i gi n and r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I . The di str i ct

cour t gr ant ed summar y j udgment t o def endant s on al l of pl ai nt i f f s'

cl ai ms, f i ndi ng, essent i al l y, t hat each of def endant s' chal l enged

act i ons wer e under t aken f or nondi scr i mi nat or y, val i d busi ness

r easons and t her ef or e wer e not unl awf ul under Ti t l e VI I .

On appeal , pl ai nt i f f s pr ess onl y t hei r di spar at e i mpact

and r et al i at i on cl ai ms ar i si ng f r om t wo act i ons on t he par t of

def endant s: ( a) t he i mpl ement at i on of t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an

dur i ng t he f i r e- saf et y r el at ed wor k at t he f aci l i t y whi ch r educed

t he number of days of work f or each empl oyee, and (b) t he cl osur e

of t he PR- NPSC. We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summary

j udgment under Federal Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedure 56 de novo, and

af f i r m "onl y i f t he r ecor d di scl oses no genui ne i ssue as t o any

mat er i al f act and t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a

mat t er of l aw. " Ol d Republ i c I ns. Co. v. St r at f or d I ns. Co. , 777

F. 3d 74, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( quot i ng Tr opi gas de P. R. , I nc. v.

Cer t ai n Under wr i t er s at Ll oyd' s of London, 637 F. 3d 53, 56 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We " r ead[ ] t he

f act s and dr aw[ ] al l i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s. " Ram r ez- Ll uver as, 759 F. 3d at 19.


13/44

- 13 -

I I I . Anal ysi s

A. Di spar at e I mpact as t o Rot at i onal St af f i ng Pl an and ast o Cl osi ng

"Ti t l e VI I pr ohi bi t s bot h i nt ent i onal di scr i mi nat i on

( known as ' di spar at e t r eat ment ' ) as wel l as, i n some cases,

pr act i ces t hat ar e not i nt ended t o di scr i mi nat e but i n f act have

a di spr opor t i onat el y adver se ef f ect on mi nor i t i es ( known as

' di spar at e i mpact ' ) . " Ri cci v. DeSt ef ano, 557 U. S. 557, 577

( 2009) . As f ar as we can t el l , pl ai nt i f f s have not pr ovi ded r ecor d

evi dence showi ng t hat t hey ar e act ual l y of Puer t o Ri can ancest r y

and or i gi n, such as t o meet t he def i ni t i on of member s of a

pr ot ect ed mi nor i t y gr oup under Ti t l e VI I . See 29 C. F. R. 1606. 1

( def i ni ng "nat i onal or i gi n di scr i mi nat i on" as i ncl udi ng "deni al of

equal empl oyment oppor t uni t y because of an i ndi vi dual ' s, or hi s or

her ancest or ' s, pl ace of or i gi n; or because an i ndi vi dual has t he

physi cal , cul t ur al or l i ngui st i c char act er i st i cs of a nat i onal

or i gi n gr oup") . That t he pl ai nt i f f s si mpl y wor ked f or FEMA i n

Puer t o Ri co - - wi t hout evi dence of t hei r member shi p i n a pr ot ect ed

cl ass - - woul d not suf f i ce f or a nat i onal or i gi n- based di spar at e

i mpact cl ai m. See Vi t al i s v. Sun Const r uct or s, I nc. , 481 F. App' x

718, 721 ( 3d Ci r . 2012) ( not i ng t hat "' l ocal s' or ' l ocal Vi r gi n

I sl ander s' " di d not const i t ut e a pr ot ect ed gr oup based on nat i onal

or i gi n because " [ n] o evi dence demonst r at ed t hat al l of t he l ocal

r esi dent s of St . Cr oi x shar e a ' uni que hi st or i cal , pol i t i cal and/ or


14/44

- 14 -

soci al ci r cumst ance[ ] ' " ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ) . For

pur poses of our anal ysi s, however , we can assume wi t hout deci di ng

t hat pl ai nt i f f s have sat i sf i ed t hi s t hr eshol d el ement , as t hei r

cl ai m f ai l s on ot her gr ounds. Cf . Candel ar i o Ramos v. Baxt er

Heal t hcar e Cor p. of P. R. , 360 F. 3d 53, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)

( pr oceedi ng on t hi s assumpt i on) .

Pl ai nt i f f s have not pur sued an i nt ent i onal

di scr i mi nat i on t heor y on appeal , and have expr essl y di savowed i t .

Thei r cl ai mi s t hat t he di scr i mi nat i on was agai nst t he Puer t o Ri can

f aci l i t y i n whi ch t hey wor ked, whi ch caused a di spar at e i mpact on

t he basi s of nat i onal or i gi n.

A pl ai nt i f f pr oceedi ng under a di spar at e i mpact t heor y

"est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e vi ol at i on by showi ng t hat an empl oyer

uses ' a par t i cul ar empl oyment pr act i ce t hat causes a di spar at e

i mpact on t he basi s of r ace, col or , r el i gi on, sex, or nat i onal

or i gi n. ' " Ri cci , 557 U. S. at 578 ( quot i ng 42 U. S. C. 2000e-

2( k) ( 1) ( A) ( i ) ) . I f t he pl ai nt i f f makes out a pr i ma f aci e case,

t he empl oyer "may def end agai nst l i abi l i t y by demonst r at i ng t hat

t he pr act i ce i s ' j ob r el at ed f or t he posi t i on i n quest i on and

consi st ent wi t h busi ness necessi t y. ' " I d. ( quot i ng 42 U. S. C.

2000e- 2( k) ( 1) ( A) ( i ) ) . And i f t he empl oyer makes t hat showi ng,

t he pl ai nt i f f may r ebut i t by demonst r at i ng " t hat t he empl oyer

r ef uses to adopt an avai l abl e al t er nat i ve empl oyment pr act i ce t hat


15/44

- 15 -

has l ess di spar at e i mpact and serves t he empl oyer ' s l egi t i mat e

needs. " I d. ( ci t i ng 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2( k) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) and ( C) ) . 7

We rej ect t he di spar at e i mpact cl ai mbecause, r egar dl ess

of whet her pl ai nt i f f s have made out a pr i ma f aci e case of i mpact ,

def endant s have pr esent ed l egi t i mat e busi ness j ust i f i cat i ons f or

t hei r act i ons, and t her e i s no cont r ar y evi dence. 8 The r ecent

Supreme Cour t deci si on i n Texas Depar t ment of Housi ng & Communi t y

Af f ai r s v. I ncl usi ve Communi t i es Pr oj ect , I nc. , 135 S. Ct . 2507

( 2015) , est abl i shes t hi s i s so. Ther e, t he Cour t emphasi zed t hat

"di spar at e- i mpact l i abi l i t y must be l i mi t ed so empl oyer s and ot her

r egul at ed ent i t i es ar e abl e t o make t he pr act i cal busi ness choi ces

7 The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat pl ai nt i f f s had successf ul l ymade a pr i ma f aci e case of di spar at e i mpact di scr i mi nat i on wi t hr espect t o bot h t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an and t he cl osi ng oft he PR- NPSC f aci l i t y, but t hat def endant s' act i ons wer e consi st ent

wi t h busi ness necessi t y and t hat pl ai nt i f f s had not pr esent edvi abl e l ess di scr i mi nat or y al t er nat i ves.8 Pl ai nt i f f s ' openi ng br i ef r ef er s t o a t hi r d al l egedl y

di scr i mi nat or y empl oyment pr act i ce - - t he f act t hat t her e wer e nof ul l - t i me posi t i ons at t he PR- NPSC. But t he br i ef ment i ons t hi sonl y i n passi ng, under a headi ng ent i t l ed "PR- NPSC Cl osur e, " andt hat i s not enough t o pr eser ve t he argument . See Uni t ed St ates v.Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i na per f unct or y manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel opedargument at i on, are deemed wai ved. " ) . Moreover , at or al argument ,t he cour t asked pl ai nt i f f s' counsel t o speci f i cal l y enumer at e t hechal l enged empl oyment pr act i ces, and she l i st ed onl y t hei mpl ement at i on of t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an and t he cl osi ng oft he PR- NPSC, t hus conf i r mi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e not pur sui ngan ar gument based on f ul l - t i me posi t i ons on appeal . I n any event ,such an ar gument woul d f ai l because, as t he di st r i ct cour t f ound,pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed no r ecor d evi dence of any del et er i ousconsequences t hey suf f er ed as a r esul t of t hei r empl oymentcl assi f i cat i on.


16/44

- 16 -

and pr of i t - r el at ed deci si ons t hat sust ai n a vi br ant and dynami c

f r ee- ent er pr i se syst em. " I d. at 2518. I t must al so be l i mi t ed as

appl i ed t o gover nment ent i t i es so as t o avoi d "i nj ect [ i ng] r aci al

consi der at i ons i nt o ever y [ agency] deci si on. " See i d. at 2524.

"Gover nment al or pr i vat e pol i ci es are not cont r ar y to t he

di spar at e- i mpact r equi r ement unl ess t hey ar e ' ar t i f i ci al ,

ar bi t r ar y, and unnecessar y bar r i er s. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Gr i ggs v.

Duke Power Co. , 401 U. S. 424, 431 ( 1971) ) .

Accor di ngl y, "bef or e r ej ecti ng a busi ness j ust i f i cat i on

. . . a cour t must det er mi ne t hat a pl ai nt i f f has shown t hat t her e

i s ' an avai l abl e al t er nat i ve . . . pr acti ce t hat has l ess di spar at e

i mpact and ser ves t he [ ent i t y' s] l egi t i mat e needs. ' " I d. at 2518

( second and t hi r d al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Ri cci , 557 U. S.

at 578) . I f empl oyer s' busi ness " j udgment s ar e subj ect t o

chal l enge wi t hout adequat e saf eguar ds, t hen t her e i s a danger t hat

pot ent i al def endant s may adopt r aci al quot as - - a ci r cumst ance

t hat . . . r ai ses ser i ous const i t ut i onal concer ns. " I d. at 2523;

see al so i d. ( "Wi t hout adequat e saf eguar ds at t he pr i ma f aci e

st age, di spar at e- i mpact l i abi l i t y mi ght cause r ace t o be used and

consi dered i n a per vasi ve way and ' woul d al most i nexor abl y l ead'

gover nment al or pr i vat e ent i t i es t o use ' numer i cal quot as, ' and

ser i ous const i t ut i onal quest i ons t hen coul d ar i se. " ( quot i ng War ds

Cove Packi ng Co. v. At oni o, 490 U. S. 642, 653 ( 1989) ) ) . " [ P] r ompt

r esol ut i on of t hese cases i s i mpor t ant . " I d.


17/44

- 17 -

Wi t h r egar d t o t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an, we agr ee

wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat "t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an ser ved

FEMA' s l egi t i mat e needs of mai ntai ni ng as many empl oyees as

possi bl e t o assi st i n t he event of a di sast er " whi l e st i l l

mai nt ai ni ng a saf e worki ng envi r onment . Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat

t he FEMA empl oyees coul d have cont i nued wor ki ng i n t he cent erwhi l e

t he saf et y i ssues wer e addr essed, but t hei r di sagr eement does not

creat e a t r i abl e i ssue t hat FEMA' s posi t i on r esul t ed f r om Puer t o

Ri can nat i onal or i gi n di scri mi nat i on. "[ G] over nment al ent i t i es

. . . must not be pr event ed f r om achi evi ng l egi t i mat e obj ect i ves,

such as ensur i ng compl i ance wi t h heal t h and saf et y codes. " I d. at

2524. The r ecor d i s cl ear t hat t he 2008 i nspect i on r eveal ed

ser i ous saf et y concer ns, and FEMA' s deci si on t o r educe st af f i ng

l evel s whi l e addr essi ng t hose concer ns and eval uat i ng t he f ut ur e

of t he PR- NPSC was r easonabl e. Even pl ai nt i f f s' counsel conceded

t hat t hese concer ns shoul d not have been i gnored. I ndeed, once

FEMA became awar e of t he probl ems at t he PR- NPSC, i t had no choi ce

but t o addr ess t hem; FEMA woul d have been subj ect t o an ent i r el y

di f f er ent sor t of l egal l i abi l i t y had i t f ai l ed t o do so. And

Ti t l e VI I di d not r equi r e FEMA t o r e- st af f t he cent er t he mi nut e

t hat t he maj or i t y of t he saf et y concer ns wer e r esol ved,

par t i cul ar l y gi ven t hat def endant s had begun cont empl at i ng the

cl osi ng of t he cent er by that t i me.


18/44

- 18 -

Regar di ng t he cl osi ng of t he cent er , t he undi sput ed

f act s show numer ous busi ness j ust i f i cat i ons f or t he concl usi on

t hat t he PR- NPSC shoul d not have r emai ned open. For exampl e,

( 1) r emedyi ng t he def i ci enci es i dent i f i ed i n t he 2008 i nspect i on

woul d have been ver y expensi ve; ( 2) est abl i shi ng and oper at i ng a

new f aci l i t y i n Puer t o Ri co woul d have been even more expensi ve;

( 3) even t hough t he PR- NPSC empl oyees t ook Spani sh- and Engl i sh-

l anguage cal l s, t he Puer t o Ri co f aci l i t y was est abl i shed

speci f i cal l y f or bi l i ngual ser vi ces, and by 2008, t he vol ume of

Spani sh- l anguage cal l s had decr eased; and ( 4) t he exi st i ng NPSC

syst em coul d absorb t he wor kl oad i f t he PR- NPSC cl osed. As

def endant s cor r ect l y not e, FEMA had ampl e basi s t o cl ose a f aci l i t y

"whi ch st i l l had ongoi ng saf et y i ssues, was i n poor condi t i on, and

l acki ng cr i t i cal moder n i nf r ast r uct ur e, and whi ch was no l onger

needed, gi ven decl i ni ng cl ai ms processi ng needs[ , ] r at her t han t o

pay appr oxi matel y $9 mi l l i on t o move t o a new f aci l i t y or t o renew

t he l ease and r enovat e t he f aci l i t y, " whi ch was " never desi gned

f or l ong- t er m FEMA use. "

The r epor t al so not ed t hat t he l ease on t he PR- NPSC

f aci l i t y was set t o expi r e i n Sept ember 2008, whi ch mi ght be bef or e

r epai r s wer e compl et ed. Even i f , as pl ai nt i f f s cont end, a l ease

r enewal per i od had never pr ompt ed a f aci l i t y i nspect i on bef or e,

t he f act r emai ns t hat t he expi r at i on of a l ease i s an emi nent l y


19/44

- 19 -

r easonabl e poi nt at whi ch t o assess opt i ons f or t he f ut ur e of a

f a c i l i t y .

Pl ai nt i f f s, not i ng t hat t he PR- NPSC empl oyees wer e

r equi r ed t o be "f ul l y bi l i ngual , " unl i ke t hei r count er par t s at

other cent er s, suggest t hat def endant s coul d have r esponded t o the

excess capaci t y i n t he NPSC syst em by "r el eas[ i ng] empl oyees

nat i onwi de based on t hei r per f ormance. " But such a cour se of

act i on woul d not have addr essed FEMA' s concerns about t he cost s

associ at ed wi t h mai nt ai ni ng t he PR- NPSC f aci l i t y. Those concer ns

are no l ess l egi t i mate si mpl y because t he PR- NPSC was t he "l owest

cost of al l t he Cent er s i n t he nat i on"; FEMA st i l l st ood t o r eal i ze

a subst ant i al cost savi ngs by cl osi ng t he PR- NPSC. 9 Agai n, t hi s

does not creat e a t r i abl e i ssue of nat i onal or i gi n di scri mi nat i on.

9

Pl ai nt i f f s l i st sever al "f act s" whi ch t hey cont end "aresuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a pat t er n whi ch cr eat es a cont r over sy ofmat er i al f act s and rebut s FEMA' s pr of f er ed reasons, whi ch wer e buta pr et ext f or di scri mi nat i on. " The di ssent si mi l ar l y f ocuses ont he quest i on of whet her FEMA harbored a di scr i mi natory i nt ent andof f ered pret ext ual j ust i f i cat i ons f or i t s act i ons . Pl ai nt i f f s 'and t he di ssent ' s f ocus on "pr et ext " and on "FEMA' s i nt ent ormot i ve" i s mi sgui ded. The pr oper i nqui r i es i n t he di spar at e i mpactanal ysi s ar e whet her t he chal l enged act i ons wer e j ob- r el at ed andconsi st ent wi t h busi ness necessi t y, and, i f so, whet her t heempl oyer has r ef used t o adopt an al t er nat i ve empl oyment pr act i cet hat has l ess di spar at e i mpact and serves t he empl oyer ' s l egi t i mat eneeds. Quest i ons r egar di ng " i nt ent or mot i ve" come i nt o pl ay i na di spar at e t r eat ment anal ysi s, not a di spar at e i mpact anal ysi s.See Ri cci , 557 U. S. at 577- 78; Hi cks v. J ohnson, 755 F. 3d 738, 744( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

I n any event , we consi der t he f act s i dent i f i ed bypl ai nt i f f s bel ow, i n our anal ysi s of t he r et al i at i on cl ai m, andf i nd t hat t hey do not gi ve r i se t o an i nf er ence of r et al i at or y orot herwi se i mpr oper mot i ve on t he par t of FEMA.


20/44

- 20 -

B. Ret al i at i on as t o Rot at i onal St af f i ng Pl an and as t oCl osi ng

Ti t l e VI I al so makes i t unl awf ul " ' f or empl oyer s t o

r et al i at e agai nst per sons who compl ai n about unl awf ul l y

di scr i mi nat or y empl oyment pract i ces. ' " Aher n v. Shi nseki , 629

F. 3d 49, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Novi el l o v. Ci t y of Bost on,

398 F. 3d 76, 88 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) . To make out a pr i ma f aci e case

of r et al i at i on, a pl ai nt i f f must make a t hr ee- par t showi ng: "( 1)

she engaged i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y under Ti t l e VI I , ( 2) she suf f er ed

an adver se empl oyment act i on, and (3) t he adver se empl oyment act i on

was causal l y connect ed t o t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y. " Ger al d v. Uni v.

of P. R. , 707 F. 3d 7, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . A "r et al i at i on cl ai m may

be vi abl e even i f t he under l yi ng di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m i s not , "

because " t he empl oyment act i vi t y or pr act i ce t hat [ t he pl ai nt i f f ]

opposed need not be a Ti t l e VI I vi ol at i on so l ong as [ t he

pl ai nt i f f ] had a r easonabl e bel i ef t hat i t was, and he communi cat ed

t hat bel i ef t o hi s empl oyer i n good f ai t h. " See Benoi t v. Tech.

Mf g. Cor p. , 331 F. 3d 166, 174- 75 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . "Ti t l e VI I

r et al i at i on cl ai ms r equi r e pr oof t hat t he desi r e t o r et al i at e was

t he but - f or cause of t he chal l enged empl oyment act i on. " Uni v. of

Tex. Sw. Med. Ct r . v. Nassar , 133 S. Ct . 2517, 2528 ( 2013) .10

10 Once t he pl ai nt i f f makes a pr i ma f aci e case, " t he bur denswi ngs t o the def endant ' t o ar t i cul at e a l egi t i mat e, non-r et al i at or y r eason f or i t s empl oyment deci si on. ' " Ger al d, 707F. 3d at 24 ( quot i ng Col l azo v. Br i st ol - Myer s Squi bb Mf g. , I nc. ,617 F. 3d 39, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) . " I f a def endant can do t hi s


21/44

- 21 -

We hol d t hat pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o make t he r equi si t e

showi ng that t he pur por t ed adver se empl oyment act i vi t y was

causal l y connect ed t o any pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, much l ess t hat

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y was a "but f or " cause of t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng

pl an or t he cl osi ng of t he PR- NPSC.

Pl ai nt i f f s i dent i f y t wo i nst ances of pr ot ected acti vi t y

whi ch t hey say l ed t o r et al i at i on i n t he f or m of t he deci si on t o

r otate empl oyees whi l e t he cent er was under r epai r dur i ng the end

of t he l ease per i od i n t he summer of 2008 and t he deci si on t o cl ose

t he cent er i n l at e 2008. The i nst ances ar e ( 1) t he EEO compl ai nt s

f i l ed f r omOct ober 2006 t o May 2007 cl ai mi ng t hat PR- NPSC empl oyees

wer e under pai d r el at i ve t o t hei r mai nl and count er par t s, and ( 2)

t he EEO compl ai nt s f i l ed i n r esponse to the J ul y 2008

i mpl ement at i on of t he rot at i onal st af f i ng syst em.

The f i r st set of compl ai nt s i s f ar t oo t emporal l y r emot e

f r om t he chal l enged act i ons t o suppor t an i nf er ence of causal i t y.

"The cases t hat accept mere tempor al proxi mi t y bet ween an

empl oyer ' s knowl edge of a pr otect ed act i vi t y and an adver se

empl oyment act i on as suf f i ci ent evi dence of causal i t y t o est abl i sh

a pr i ma f aci e case uni f orml y hol d t hat t he t emporal pr oxi mi t y must

be ' ver y cl ose. ' " Cl ar k Ct y. Sch. Di st . v. Br eeden, 532 U. S. 268,

t hen t he bur den t r avel s once mor e t o t he pl ai nt i f f t o show t hatt he r eason i s pr et ext and t hat r et al i at or y ani mus was t he r ealmot i vat i ng f actor . " I d.


22/44

- 22 -

273- 74 ( 2001) ( quot i ng O' Neal v. Fer guson Const r . Co. , 237 F. 3d

1248, 1253 ( 10t h Ci r . 2001) ) ( not i ng t hat per i ods of t hr ee and

f our mont hs have been hel d i nsuf f i ci ent ) . I n Br eeden, t he Cour t

hel d t hat "[ a] ct i on t aken . . . 20 mont hs l at er suggest s, by

i t sel f , no causal i t y at al l . " I d. at 274. Her e, over 14 mont hs

el apsed between t he l ast EEO compl ai nt r egardi ng pay and the

i mpl ement at i on of t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng syst em dur i ng r epai r s.

That i s t oo l ong t o suppor t an i nf er ence t hat t he compl ai nt s l ed

t o a deci si on t o r educe st af f i ng dur i ng f i r e- saf et y r el at ed

r epai r s. See Shi nseki , 629 F. 3d at 58 ( "Wi t hout some cor r obor at i ng

evi dence suggest i ve of causat i on . . . a gap of sever al mont hs

cannot al one gr ound an i nf erence of a causal connect i on between a

compl ai nt and an al l egedl y r et al i at or y act i on. ") ; Mor n- Bar r adas

v. Dep' t of Educ. of Commonweal t h of P. R. , 488 F. 3d 472, 481 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) ( "[ M] or e t han ei ght mont hs . . . i s . . . i nsuf f i ci ent

t o est abl i sh t empor al pr oxi mi t y. ") .

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he "chai n of event s" compr i si ng

t hei r pr ot ect ed act i vi t y di d not end unt i l Apr i l 2008, when "[ t ] he

Of f i ce of Equal Ri ght s r ecei ved t he [ Febr uar y 2008] EEOC deci si on"

di smi ssi ng pl ai nt i f f s' cl ass compl ai nt and or der i ng t hem t o f i l e

i ndi vi dual compl ai nt s. Pl ai nt i f f s ar e wr ong. Di smi ssal of an EEO

compl ai nt cannot be const r ued as pr ot ect ed act i vi t y on t he par t of

t he pl ai nt i f f s, and pl ai nt i f f s have pr esent ed no evi dence t hat


23/44

- 23 -

t hey act ual l y f i l ed i ndi vi dual compl ai nt s af t er t he j udge' s

deci si on, or t hat def endant s ant i ci pat ed t hey woul d.

Pl ai nt i f f s suggest t hat t her e i s mor e evi dence of

causat i on t han mere t emporal pr oxi mi t y here because def endant s'

"act i ons . . . wer e . . . a devi at i on f r om t he pr ocedur es f ol l owed

wi t hi n t he PR NPSC and NPSC syst em f or over t en year s. "

Speci f i cal l y, t hey asser t t hat FEMA had never bef or e conduct ed

i nspect i ons of t he PR- NPSC, t hat t he condi t i ons i dent i f i ed i n t he

2007 METAR had exi st ed i n t he f aci l i t y si nce i t s i ni t i al openi ng

i n 1995 but FEMA had i gnored t he pr obl ems, t hat t he condi t i ons

wer e i n f act not l i f e- t hr eat eni ng, and t hat t he 2008 f i r e r epor t

di d not act ual l y recommend l i mi t ed occupancy or cl osur e.

We ar e not per suaded. Pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o no evi dence

t o suppor t t hei r suggest i on t hat t he 2007 i nspect i on was i t sel f a

mer e pr et ext t o event ual l y cl ose t he cent er . The r ecor d i n f act

suggest s t hat FEMA management was not awar e of t he saf et y i ssues

unt i l t hey wer e i dent i f i ed i n t he 2007 METAR, whereupon t he

management began t aki ng st eps t o r ect i f y t he pr obl ems. The r ecor d

al so di scl oses a compl et el y beni gn and l ogi cal r eason f or t he 2008

i nspect i on: FEMA management was concerned about t he saf et y i ssues

i dent i f i ed i n the 2007 METAR.

Pl ai nt i f f s ci t e Har r i ngt on v. Aggr egat e I ndust r i es

Nor t heast Regi on, I nc. , 668 F. 3d 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , wher e we not ed

t hat "devi at i ons f r om st andar d pr ocedur es, t he sequence of


24/44

- 24 -

occur r ences l eadi ng up t o a chal l enged deci si on, and cl ose t empor al

pr oxi mi t y bet ween r el evant event s" can "gi ve r i se t o an i nf er ence

of pr et ext . " I d. at 33. But Har r i ngt on i s easi l y di st i ngui shabl e,

and pl ai nt i f f s make no ef f or t t o expl ai n why i t shoul d appl y her e.

I n f i ndi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f i n Har r i ngt on, a whi st l ebl ower who

was f i r ed af t er he r ef used t o t ake a dr ug t est , had shown

causat i on, we r el i ed on evi dence of ver y "cl ose t empor al pr oxi mi t y"

( 72 hour s) , devi at i ons f r om t he empl oyer ' s dr ug t est i ng pr ot ocol ,

i nconsi st ences i n t he empl oyer ' s account s of t he r easons f or t he

dr ug t est , and t he " [ c] oi nci dence[ ] " t hat t he empl oyee was si ngl ed

out f or a pur por t edl y r andomdr ug t est on hi s f i r st day per manent l y

back at wor k af t er hi s whi st l ebl owi ng act i vi t i es came t o l i ght .

I d. at 32- 34. Even t her e, we sai d t he case was "cl ose. " I d. at

34. Her e, i n cont r ast , pl ai nt i f f s cannot show t empor al pr oxi mi t y,

and t he r ecor d di scl oses no shi f t i ng expl anat i ons f or devi at i ons

f r om pr ot ocol or i mpr obabl e "coi nci dences" gi vi ng r i se t o an

i nf er ence of pr et ext .

The f i r st set of compl ai nt s i dent i f i ed by pl ai nt i f f s

occur r ed t oo ear l y t o gr ound a r et al i at i on cl ai m. The second set

occur r ed t oo l at e and cannot be causal l y r el at ed. The deci si on t o

cl ose t he PR- NPSC was set i n mot i on by r ecommendat i ons i n May 2008,

at l east t wo mont hs bef or e t he i mpl ement at i on of t he r ot at i onal

st af f i ng syst em, t he subj ect of t he second set of compl ai nt s. As

t he Supreme Cour t has expl ai ned, empl oyers' "pr oceedi ng al ong


25/44

- 25 -

l i nes pr evi ousl y cont empl at ed, t hough not yet def i ni t i vel y

det er mi ned, i s no evi dence what ever of causal i t y. " Br eeden, 532

U. S. at 272; accor d Muoz v. Soci edad Espaol a de Auxi l i o Mut uo y

Benef i ci enci a de P. R. , 671 F. 3d 49, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I n

Br eeden, t he Cour t hel d t hat i t coul d not i nf er t hat t he pl ai nt i f f

had been t r ansf er r ed i n r et al i at i on f or f i l i ng a Ti t l e VI I l awsui t

when t he pl ai nt i f f ' s empl oyer had st at ed t hat she was consi der i ng

t r ansf er r i ng t he pl ai nt i f f bef or e t he empl oyer knew about t he

l awsui t . 532 U. S. at 271- 72. Her e, wi t hout mor e evi dence of

causal i t y ( and pl ai nt i f f s have poi nt ed t o none) , t her e can be no

r at i onal i nf er ence t hat t he cl osur e of t he PR- NPSC, f i r st

cont empl ated i n May 2008, t ook pl ace i n r et al i at i on f or compl ai nt s

f i l ed i n t he wake of t he J ul y 2008 i mpl ement at i on of t he r ot at i onal

staf f i ng pl an.

Pl ai nt i f f s suggest t hat we can i nf er a r et al i at or y or

ot herwi se i mpr oper mot i ve on t he par t of def endant s because of a

number of ci r cumst ances: ( 1) " [ w] henever i n t he past t her e had

been a reduct i on i n t he wor kl oad, FEMA woul d r el ease empl oyees

nat i onwi de based on t hei r per f or mance, " r at her t han cl osi ng an

ent i r e cent er ; ( 2) even though FEMA ci t ed budget ary concer ns as a

r eason f or cl osi ng the PR- NPSC, i t was act ual l y t he cheapest NPSC

t o oper at e; ( 3) even t hough FEMA cl ai med t hat PR- NPSC was no l onger

needed because of a decr ease i n Spani sh- l anguage cal l s, t he cent er

al so handl ed Engl i sh- l anguage cal l s; ( 4) FEMA di d not compl y wi t h


26/44

- 26 -

i t s own document ed l ease renewal pol i cy wi t h respect t o t he PR-

NPSC, even t hough i t di d so f or al l other NPSC l ease r enewal s; and

( 5) FEMA opened a new cal l cent er i n Pasadena, Cal i f orni a i n 2012. 11

These ar guments add not hi ng t o pl ai nt i f f s' case. Gi ven

t he saf et y concer ns at t he PR- NPSC f aci l i t y ( t he exi st ence of whi ch

pl ai nt i f f s have conceded12) , t he i mpendi ng expi r at i on of t he

f aci l i t y' s l ease, and t he $9 mi l l i on cost of est abl i shi ng a new

Puer t o Ri co f aci l i t y, i t i s not sur pr i si ng t hat FEMA deci ded t o

cl ose t he PR- NPSC i n the f ace of r educed st af f i ng needs. 13 Whi l e

PR- NPSC empl oyees wer e f ul l y bi l i ngual and coul d handl e both

Spani sh- and Engl i sh- l anguage cal l s, i t i s undi sput ed t hat t he

Puer t o Ri co f aci l i t y was or i gi nal l y est abl i shed speci f i cal l y f or

11 At or al ar gument , pl ai nt i f f s' counsel ar gued t hat ,r at her t han cl osi ng t he PR- NPSC, FEMA shoul d have r el ocat ed i t , as

i t di d t he Vi r gi ni a NPSC. Thi s ar gument i s ment i oned i n onl y t hemost cur sor y f ashi on i n pl ai nt i f f s' br i ef and i s t her ef or e wai ved.See Davi dson v. Howe, 749 F. 3d 21, 27 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r 2014) ; Zanni no,895 F. 2d at 17. I n any event , i t i s not per suasi ve f or t he samer easons t hat t he argument s r egardi ng t he other pr of f er ed evi dencear e not .

12 Pl ai nt i f f s' counsel conceded at or al argument t hat t heMay 2008 i nspect i on di scl osed saf et y i ssues t hat "shoul dn' t havebeen i gnored, " but mai nt ai ned t hat t he i ssues shoul d have beenaddr essed ear l i er .

13 The FEMA handbook, whi ch pl ai nt i f f s ci t e f or t hei rcont ent i on t hat FEMA has a pol i cy of uni f or m l ayof f s when st af f i ngneeds decr ease, says no such t hi ng. I t si mpl y says t hat whenempl oyees ar e r el eased based on f l uct uat i ng st af f i ng needs, FEMAwi l l consi der "one or mor e" of t he f ol l owi ng f act or s:"Per f or mance, " " J ob Funct i on, " " Wor k Schedul e Avai l abi l i t y, " " MostRecent Hi r e Dat e, " and "Pr oduct i on Level s. " Ther e i s no i ndi cat i ont hat FEMA has a hard- and- f ast r ul e that any necessar y l ayof f s woul dbe evenl y di st r i but ed among t he NPSCs.


27/44

- 27 -

bi l i ngual ser vi ces, t he need f or whi ch had shar pl y di mi ni shed by

2008. 14 Whi l e FEMA coul d have made di f f er ent busi ness deci si ons,

as we have sai d bef or e, "[ i ] n t he absence of pr oof suf f i ci ent t o

cr eat e a j ur y i ssue r egar di ng r et al i at i on, cour t s shoul d not use

cases i nvol vi ng unsuppor t ed r epr i sal cl ai ms t o pol i ce t he wi sdom,

f ai r ness, or even t he r at i onal i t y of an empl oyer ' s busi ness

j udgments. " Mesni ck v. Gen. El ec. Co. , 950 F. 2d 816, 829 ( 1st

Ci r . 1991) .

I n shor t , we cannot concl ude on t hi s r ecor d t hat t he

r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an or t he cl osi ng of t he PR- NPSC was causal l y

r el at ed t o any of pl ai nt i f f s ' pr ot ect ed act i vi t y. Pl ai nt i f f s '

r et al i at i on cl ai ms f ai l , as wel l .

The pr emi se of t hi s ent i r e l awsui t was er r oneous.

Pl ai nt i f f s cannot f or ce a gover nment agency t o keep open an unsaf e

f aci l i t y whi ch woul d have cost excessi ve sums t o r epai r when t her e

are al t er nate means by whi ch t he agency can accompl i sh i t s goal s.

" [ G] over nment al ent i t i es . . . must not be pr event ed f r omachi evi ng

l egi t i mat e obj ect i ves. " Tex. Dep' t of Hous. , 135 S. Ct . at 2524.

14 We al so not e t hat t he Cal i f or ni a f aci l i t y t hatpl ai nt i f f s r ef er t o was not a NPSC, and, i n any event , i t openedover t hr ee years af t er t he cl osi ng of t he PR- NPSC. That FEMAopened a di f f er ent t ype of f aci l i t y i n Cal i f or ni a t hr ee year s af t ercl osi ng a NPSC i n Puer t o Ri co t hat had ser i ous f i r e saf et y i ssuesdoes not r ai se any i nf er ence of an i mpr oper mot i ve on FEMA' s par ti n cl osi ng t he PR- NPSC.


28/44

- 28 -

What t he Supreme Cour t sai d i n Texas Depar t ment of Housi ng of t he

Fai r Housi ng Act i s equal l y t r ue of Ti t l e VI I :

Di spar at e- i mpact l i abi l i t y mandat es t he' r emoval of ar t i f i ci al , ar bi t r ar y, andunnecessary bar r i er s, ' not t he di spl acement ofval i d gover nment al pol i ci es. The [ st at ut e] i snot an i nst r ument t o f or ce [ agenci es] t or eor der t hei r pr i or i t i es. Rat her , t he[ st at ut e] ai ms t o ensur e t hat t hose pr i or i t i escan be achi eved wi t hout ar bi t r ar i l y cr eat i ngdi scr i mi nat or y ef f ect s . . . .

I d. at 2522 ( quot i ng Gr i ggs, 401 U. S. at 431) .

I V. Concl usi on

We af f i r m t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t .

- Dissenting Opinion Follows -


29/44

- 29 -

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I am once mor e

compel l ed t o di ssent 15 because Pl ai nt i f f s- Appel l ant s

( "Pl ai nt i f f s") have r ai sed genui ne i ssues of mat er i al f act t hat

r equi r e a t r i al bef or e a f act f i nder .

I. Background

A. The Discrimination Claims

As t he maj or i t y opi ni on r ecount s, t he f act s of t hi s case

go back t o 1995 when, i n r esponse t o Hur r i cane Mar i l yn' s ef f ect s

on Puer t o Ri co and t he U. S. Vi r gi n I sl ands, t he Feder al Emer gency

Management Agency ( "FEMA" or "Def endant s" ) opened t he Puer t o Ri co

Nat i onal Pr ocessi ng Ser vi ce Cent er ( "PR Cent er " ) , whi ch st ar t ed

or i gi nal l y as a t el e- r egi str at i on cent er , or cal l cent er .

The scope of FEMA' s oper at i ons i n t he PR Center evol ved

over t he f ol l owi ng decade t o t he poi nt t hat i t became one of i t s

f our nat i onal cl ai ms- pr ocessi ng cent er s i n t he Uni t ed St at es,

car r yi ng out t he same dut i es t hat t he ot her FEMA cent ers per f ormed

on t he mai nl and, wi t h t he addi t i onal benef i t t hat - - i t s per sonnel

bei ng bi l i ngual - - i t was abl e t o handl e cal l s and pr ocess cl ai ms

f r ombot h Engl i sh and Spani sh speaker s. Cont r ar y t o t he maj or i t y' s

15 The maj or i t y wi t hdr ew i t s or i gi nal opi ni on, Abr i l - Ri ver a v.J ohnson, 795 F. 3d 245 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( wi t hdr awn) , i n r esponse t ot he or i gi nal di ssent i ng opi ni on obj ect i ng t o i t s unusual andunj ust i f i ed mot u pr opr i o r ai si ng of t he so- cal l ed saf e har bordef ense, see 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2( h) , si nce exci sed, and as a t act i cf or avoi di ng an en banc rehear i ng. See 14- 1316, Abr i l - Ri ver a v.J ohnson, November 17, 2015, or der wi t hdr awi ng opi ni on.


30/44

- 30 -

asser t i on, i t i s undi sput ed by bot h Pl ai nt i f f s and Def endant s t hat

Pl ai nt i f f s ar e al l of Puer t o Ri can nat i onal or i gi n and compr i se

appr oxi mat el y ni net y- ei ght per cent of t he PR Cent er ' s wor kf or ce.

As t he maj or i t y descr i bes, when t he PR Cent er empl oyees

r eal i zed t hey had been under - compensat ed f or t he same wor k

per f ormed by t hei r count er par t s i n other FEMA cent er s across t he

Uni t ed St at es, some empl oyees compl ai ned t o management about t hi s

si t uat i on and event ual l y f i l ed compl ai nt s f or equal pay bef or e t he

Agency' s Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y Of f i ce ( "EEOO") , al l egi ng

t hat by payi ng t hem l ess, FEMA engaged i n di spar at e i mpact

di scri mi nat i on on t he basi s of t hei r nat i onal or i gi n. FEMA set t l ed

some of t hese cl ai ms i n 2006. Lat er , anot her group of empl oyees

al so f i l ed f or mal di scr i mi nat i on compl ai nt s bef or e t he EEOO and

r equest ed cer t i f i cat i on as a cl ass act i on.

What i s st r i ki ng about t hi s second r ound of compl ai nt s

i s t he cur i ous chai n of event s t hat began onl y t wo mont hs af t er

t hese f i l i ngs. I n J une 2007, t he agency' s Occupat i onal , Saf et y &

Heal t h Of f i ce per f ormed an uncommon i nspect i on of t he PR Cent er ' s

pr emi ses. For t he f i r st t i me i n t wel ve year s i t car r i ed out a

Management Eval uat i on and Techni cal Ass i st ance Revi ew ( "METAR") .

Whi l e mul t i pl e bui l di ng def i ci enci es and saf et y needs wer e f ound

i n t hi s 2007 METAR, by t he t i me FEMA per f ormed a f ol l ow- up bui l di ng

r evi ew i n May 2008, most of t he def i ci enci es had been pr oper l y

addr essed and cor r ect ed. I n t he meant i me, FEMA' s Puer t o Ri can


31/44

- 31 -

empl oyees cont i nued t hei r bat t l e f or equal pay. The second r ound

of di scr i mi nat i on compl ai nt s t hat had been f i l ed shor t l y bef or e

t he 2007 METAR were di smi ssed i n Febr uary 2008, f ol l owi ng a deni al

of cl ass cer t i f i cat i on. I nst ead, t he FEMA admi ni st r at i ve j udge

or der ed t he compl ai nant s t o r e- f i l e t hei r cl ai ms i ndi vi dual l y,

whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t hey di d.

B. Procedural History

I n essence, Pl ai nt i f f s ' case i s t hat , f aced wi t h t hi s

scenar i o, FEMA cr af t ed a busi ness necessi t y t o j ust i f y pl aci ng

t hem i n a r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an, t hen cl osi ng t he PR Cent er and

or der i ng t hei r t er mi nat i on. Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, FEMA di d

t hi s by i nspect i ng t he PR Cent er pr emi ses and i ssui ng a l i st of

saf et y concer ns t hat al l egedl y r equi r ed cl osi ng t he cent er

i mmedi at el y f or r epai r s, and onl y al l owi ng a l i mi t ed number of

empl oyees t o cont i nue t o work on a r ot at i onal basi s. Because FEMA

had never r ai sed concer ns r egar di ng t he bui l di ng' s condi t i ons

pr i or t o t hat poi nt , and t he saf et y i ssues wer e ei t her non- l i f e-

t hr eat eni ng or qui ckl y resol ved, Pl ai nt i f f s ar gued t hat FEMA

shoul d have suspended t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an and al l owed

t hem t o r et ur n t o wor k. I n r esponse t o t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng

pl an, Pl ai nt i f f s al so f i l ed appr oxi mat el y 300 compl ai nt s.

Meanwhi l e, FEMA di d some number - cr unchi ng and came up wi t h a

r educt i on i n oper at i onal needs f or i t s nat i onwi de cl ai ms

pr ocessi ng cent er s t hat al l egedl y j ust i f i ed cl osi ng t he PR Cent er


32/44

- 32 -

al t oget her . Pl ai nt i f f s r esponded t hat t hi s was i n r et al i at i on f or

t hei r compl ai nt s over t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an, and t hat f ar

f r om t hi s r epr esent i ng a val i d busi ness necessi t y t hat woul d

j ust i f y t hei r t er mi nat i on, FEMA hi st or i cal l y had r el eased

empl oyees based on per f ormance and not on l ocat i on. They cl ai m

t hi s coul d have been done by r el easi ng empl oyees f r om al l cent er s

r at her t han si mpl y cl osi ng t he PR Cent er .

I n sum, Pl ai nt i f f s' r equest f or r el i ef on appeal i s that

we r emand t hi s case so t hat a f act f i nder can deci de whet her t hei r

al t er nat i ves t o FEMA' s busi ness needs def eat FEMA' s

j ust i f i cat i ons, and whether FEMA' s adverse act i ons agai nst

Pl ai nt i f f s ar e t he r esul t of r et al i at or y act i ons ar i s i ng f r omthei r

cl ai ms f or equal wor ki ng condi t i ons and t hei r r equest s t o r et ur n

t o wor k dur i ng t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an. The f or mer can be

shown by est abl i shi ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f s' al t er nat i ves woul d have

served FEMA' s al l eged busi ness necessi t y wi t hout t he

di scri mi nat or y i mpact on t hem or t hat FEMA' s j ust i f i cat i ons f or

bot h the rot at i onal st af f i ng pl an and the PR Cent er cl osur e wer e

pr et extual . The l at t er coul d be f ound by a r easonabl e j ur y based

on t he cl ose tempor al pr oxi mi t y of t he adver se act i ons t o t he

pr ot ect ed compl ai nt s f or equal wor ki ng condi t i ons and t he

compl ai nt s f i l ed i n r esponse t o t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an.

Pr et ext can al so be i nf er r ed f r om Pl ai nt i f f s' chal l enges t o t he

gr aveness of t he al l eged saf et y def i ci enci es.


33/44

- 33 -

FEMA, on t he ot her hand, asser t s t hat i t based i t s

deci si ons on ensur i ng " t he saf et y and secur i t y of [ i t s] empl oyees, "

and t he di st r i ct cour t agr eed wi t h t hi s by f i ndi ng t hat t her e wer e

"f i r e and saf et y def i ci enci es. " FEMA al so j ust i f i ed i t s cl osur e

deci si on on t he r educed needs f or t he PR Cent er wi t hi n i t s

nat i onwi de oper at i ons.

II. Factual Controversies

A. FEMA's Sudden Concern over Employees' Safety

The f i r st pr obl em wi t h t he st or y t hat FEMA of f er s t o

suppor t t he al l eged adver se act i ons i s t hat , even accept i ng t he

sever i t y of t he saf et y concer ns on whi ch t hei r busi ness necessi t y

j ust i f i cat i on was par t l y pr emi sed, t he f i ndi ngs of t he J une 2007

METAR i nspect i on are ver y si mi l ar t o those of t he 2008 r evi ew, and

yet , t he need f or act i on ( cl osi ng t he cent er f or r epai r s) on

pr evi ousl y non- t hr eat eni ng condi t i ons ar ose unexpl ai nabl y i n 2008.

The f i ndi ngs wer e, i nt er al i a, t hat a r eeval uat i on of t he f i r e

al ar m syst em and r el at ed emer gency pr ocedur es needed t o be

conduct ed; assessment and modi f i cat i on of t he bui l di ng' s egr ess

r out es was needed; t he f aci l i t y di d not have a hazardous

communi cat i on, mater i al , or l adder saf et y pr ogr am; OSHA For m 300

i nj ur y l og pr ocedur es and For m301 i nci dent r epor t pr ocedur es wer e

not updat ed; exi t si gns wer e not pr esent at sever al l ocat i ons

t hr oughout t he f aci l i t y; and i nt er nal saf et y or i ent at i on t r ai ni ng

was not provi ded. By t he t i me t he 2008 r evi ew was per f ormed, al l


34/44

- 34 -

mat t er s wer e ei t her cor r ect ed or had a cor r ect i ve pl an i n ef f ect .

I n f act by May 21, 2008, FEMA' s own i nter nal communi cat i ons show

t hat t he "onl y i t em pendi ng on the [2007] METAR whi ch [had] not

been sol ved" was t he const r uct i on of a new egr ess r out e. I t bear s

not i ng that t hi s egr ess r out e had never been a concer n of FEMA, as

t he bui l di ng never had one si nce i t was f i r st occupi ed by FEMA i n

1995. I n f act , t he egr ess pat hway and r amp t hat were ment i oned i n

t he 2007 METAR wer e onl y r ecommended as " mi d- l ong t er m

r ecommendat i ons. " Al so, t he pr oper t y l ease f or t hi s f aci l i t y had

been r enewed per i odi cal l y but t he f aci l i t y was not i nspect ed ever y

t i me i t was r enewed. 16 For t wel ve years, FEMA of f i cer s and managers

vi si t ed t he PR Cent er wi t hout ever r ai si ng any concer ns about

danger ous condi t i ons on si t e.

Fur t her mor e, Pl ai nt i f f s argue t hat t he 2008 r evi ew

f i ndi ngs t hat wer e necessar y f or r e- occupancy of t he PR Cent er

wer e mi ni mal . 17 These i ncl uded conduct i ng a f i r e wat ch i n t he

bui l di ng dur i ng occupancy, r emovi ng magnet i c l ocks f r om exi t

door s, r emovi ng al l st or age i n t he egr ess cor r i dor s, updat i ng and

pr act i ci ng t he Occupant Emer gency Pl an, i nst al l i ng a secondar y

16 The l ease of t he PR Cent er pr oper t y was up f or r enewal i nSept ember 2008, but t he f aci l i t y was cl osed t emporar i l y on May 16,2008, and t hen par t i al l y re- opened dur i ng t he r ot at i onal st af f i ngpl an.

17 A f or mer FEMA Br anch Chi ef st at ed t hat t he bui l di ng condi t i oni ssues wer e "easi l y cor r ect abl e. " The cost of t he r epai r s wasest i mat ed t o be $75, 000.


35/44

- 35 -

egr ess man- gat e on t he per i met er f ence at t he r ear of t he bui l di ng,

addi ng addi t i onal f i r e ext i ngui sher s, and obt ai ni ng f i r e hydr ant

f l ow t est i nf or mat i on. Cr uci al l y, t he 2008 r evi ew r epor t di d not

r ecommend cl osi ng t he PR Cent er or r educi ng i t s capaci t y by

i mpl ement i ng t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an. And, by J ul y 2008, t he

concer ns i dent i f i ed i n t he May 2008 r evi ew - - whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s

i nsi st wer e not l i f e t hr eat eni ng - - had al r eady been r esol ved. I n

sum, even assumi ng t he val i di t y of FEMA' s busi ness necessi t y t o

assure t he saf et y of i t s empl oyees, a j ur y coul d r easonabl y agr ee

wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s' compel l i ng di sput e of FEMA' s j ust i f i cat i on f or

denyi ng t hei r al t er nat i ve opt i on t o t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an,

whi ch was t o r eoccupy t he PR Cent er ' s pr emi ses and cont i nue

wor ki ng.

B. The Newly Discovered Reduction of Operational

Needs

As t he emai l exchanges between FEMA of f i ci al s cont ai ned

i n t he r ecor d r eveal , FEMA began l ooki ng f or j ust i f i cat i ons f or

t he per manent cl osur e of t he PR Cent er af t er t he i ni t i al emer gency

cl osur e f or r epai r s on May 16, 2008, f ol l owi ng t he 2008 r evi ew.

At t hat poi nt , t he recor d shows t hat FEMA di d not possess met r i cs,

dat a, or st at i st i cs showi ng t hat t he PR Cent er was not necessar y

t o i t s oper at i ons nat i onwi de or even measur i ng t he pot ent i al

ef f ect s of i t s cl osur e on t he agency' s oper at i ons. What i s mor e,

some FEMA of f i cer s di d not even know why t he agency had come t o


36/44

- 36 -

concent r at e on Puer t o Ri co at t he t i me. That i s, FEMA f i r st cl osed

t he cent er and i nst i t ut ed t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an bef or e i t

had col l ect ed t he evi dence t o come up wi t h one of i t s " busi ness

necessi t y" j ust i f i cat i ons. Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed an emai l sent by

t he Deput y Admi ni st r at or of FEMA on May 26, 2008, aski ng thi ngs

l i ke t he "desi r ed capaci t y and exact l y how we can achi eve [ i t ]

wi t hout Puer t o Ri co" ; " [ w] hat do we expect t o be [ our ] Spani sh

l anguage r equi r ement and what opt i ons wi l l we have?" ; " [ w] ant t o

show t hat t hey ar e t ypi cal l y a smal l par t of t he whol e syst em, and

t hat t he syst em has t he capaci t y to absor b t he Puer t o Ri co

wor kl oad" ; "[ h] ow l ong have t he f aci l i t y def i ci enci es exi st ed and

why ar e we j ust bei ng at t ent i ve now?" ; " [ h] ave t her e been any

t r ends t hat r educe t he r ol e of t he NPSC?" ; " [ c] an we show t r ends

i n gr eat er usage of on- l i ne?" ; " [ w] e need t o show t hat we can l i ve

wi t hout Puer t o Ri co, even i n a cat ast r ophi c si t uat i on" ; and " [ w] e

wi l l need t o i dent i f y each of t he ot her si t es and i ndi cat e why we

woul d not cl ose t hem or r educe t hei r capaci t y. " Never t hel ess, t he

agency based i t s j ust i f i cat i on f or t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an

and cl osi ng t he PR Cent er on t he f i r m convi ct i on t hat , i n addi t i on

t o i t bei ng a saf et y concer n, i t was no l onger necessary t o i t s

oper at i ons. I ndeed, t he dat a on oper at i onal needs and st at i st i cs

was onl y known by December 2008, when t he deci si on t o cl ose

per manent l y was made and af t er al l t he al l eged " l i f e- t hr eat eni ng"

saf et y concer ns had al r eady been addr essed. I t i s hard t o see how


37/44

- 37 -

t he saf et y of t he empl oyees was st i l l an i ssue by t he t i me t he

data needed t o suppor t t he second par t of t he al l eged busi ness

necessi t y was col l ect ed.

As par t of i t s oper at i onal j ust i f i cat i ons f or t he

cl osur e, once the rot at i onal st af f i ng syst emhad been i mpl ement ed,

FEMA quant i f i ed an al l eged r educt i on i n Spani sh cal l s. Pl ai nt i f f s

cont end, however , t hat t hi s i s i r r el evant because the empl oyees i n

t he PR Cent er wer e bi l i ngual and had been pr ocessi ng cal l s and

cl ai ms f r om al l acr oss t he Uni t ed St at es f or year s. Fur t her mor e,

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat as of Oct ober 2008, even bef or e t he f i nal

cl osur e of t he cent er , FEMA al r eady had t o cont r act exter nal

l anguage ser vi ces.

The maj or i t y st at es t hat i t agrees wi t h t he di st r i ct

cour t t hat t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an ser ved FEMA' s needs by

al l owi ng i t t o have some empl oyees i n t he PR Cent er , despi t e the

bui l di ng' s unsaf e condi t i ons, so t hat t hey coul d assi st i n a

di sast er scenar i o. Thi s seems compl et el y i ncongr uent wi t h FEMA' s

cl ai m t hat i t had no oper at i onal need f or t he PR Cent er onl y a f ew

mont hs af t er t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an began. I t i s nonsensi cal

t o say that t he j ust i f i cat i on f or cl osi ng t he PR Cent er per manent l y

was t hat FEMA di d not need t hose empl oyees because of r educt i ons

i n oper at i ons whi l e recogni zi ng t hat FEMA had a l egi t i mat e need to

mai nt ai n at l east some of t hem i n t hat same cent er t o assi st i n

t he event of a di sast er .


38/44

- 38 -

Pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat , whenever FEMA f aced a need

f or r educt i on i n wor kf or ce i n t he past , i t r el eased empl oyees

nat i onwi de based on per f or mance. Whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s do not ar gue

t hat FEMA r egul at i ons r equi r ed i t t o do so, t hey cl ai m t hat t he

agency depar t ed f r om i t s pr i or pr act i ce onl y t o di scri mi nat e

agai nst t hem by cl osi ng t he PR Cent er and or der i ng t hei r

t er mi nat i on. The maj or i t y' s answer t o Pl ai nt i f f s' pr oposed

al t ernat i ve, t hat FEMA shoul d have termi nat ed empl oyees on a

nat i onal l evel based on per f or mance, i s a non sequi t ur . I t cl ai ms

t hat FEMA coul d not do so because i t had j ust r eal i zed t hat i t had

a budget ar y need t o cl ose t he PR Cent er . Pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument ,

however , i s not t hat FEMA coul d r el ease empl oyees acr oss t he Uni t ed

St ates based on per f ormance whi l e l eavi ng t he PR Cent er i n ser vi ce.

What t hey ar gue i s t hat FEMA coul d have cl osed t he PR Cent er but

t r ansf er r ed some Puer t o Ri can empl oyees t o ot her cent er s on t he

mai nl and t o f i l l spot s cr eat ed by rel easi ng empl oyees t her e based

on per f ormance, aver t i ng any di spar ate i mpact on Puer t o Ri can

empl oyees, or empl oyees who had f i l ed compl ai nt s concerni ng

di spar ate worki ng condi t i ons and compensat i on.

Rel at edl y, Pl ai nt i f f s al so di sput e t hat some empl oyees

wer e al l owed t o t r ansf er t o ot her Nat i onal Pr ocessi ng Ser vi ce

Cent er s because at t he t i me t he deci si on t o per manent l y cl ose t he

PR Cent er was made, t hey were gi ven onl y t went y- f our hour s t o

deci de whet her t hey want ed t o move t o t he mai nl and. Fur t her mor e,


39/44

- 39 -

not al l wer e of f er ed posi t i ons i n anot her cent er and most wer e

asked t o r eappl y and compet e f or new openi ngs i n those posi t i ons.

Taken t ogether , al l t hese f act s become i ncr easi ngl y

suspi ci ous when consi der i ng t hat t he empl oyees i n t he PR Cent er

had al ways been cl assi f i ed as cal l cent er empl oyees, whi l e t hei r

non- Puer t o Ri can count er par t s i n t he mai nl and wer e cl assi f i ed at

hi gher pay scal es f or doi ng t he same cl ai ms- pr ocessi ng t asks. Over

t he pr evi ous t wo years, Puer t o Ri can empl oyees had been bat t l i ng

FEMA over equal pay. When Progr am Speci al i st s compl ai ned about

t he di scr epancy i n pay and FEMA agr eed to adj ust t hei r

cl assi f i cat i on, t hese empl oyees wer e pl aced i n t he l owest st ep of

t he cl assi f i cat i on and deni ed i ncr eases ear ned as wel l as back

pay. I n addi t i on, when t he f i nal cl osur e deci si on was made, t he

PR Cent er empl oyees had f i l ed mor e than 300 compl ai nt s wi t h t he

EEOO because of t he rot at i onal st af f i ng syst em i mposed af t er t he

i ni t i al cl osur e f ol l owi ng t he May 2008 r evi ew.

Thus, I di sagr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat Pl ai nt i f f s ar e

not ent i t l ed t o have t hei r day i n cour t t o show t hat FEMA' s

j ust i f i cat i on t o t er mi nat e t hem and cl ose t he PR Center based on

saf et y concerns and t he al l eged reduced oper at i onal needs wer e

si mpl y pr et extual because i t s t r ue r eason was t o avoi d t he

di scr i mi nat i on compl ai nt s br ought by t he Puer t o Ri can empl oyees.

These quest i ons of f act ar e i n no way f or ecl osed by t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s r ecent deci si on i n Texas Depar t ment of Housi ng & Communi t y


40/44

- 40 -

Af f ai r s v. I ncl usi ve Communi t i es Pr oj ect , I nc. , 135 S. Ct . 2507

( 2015) , as t he maj or i t y i mpl i es. At a mi ni mum, "a cour t must

det er mi ne t hat a pl ai nt i f f has shown t hat t her e i s ' an al t er nat i ve

. . . pr act i ce t hat has l ess di spar at e i mpact and ser ves t he

[ ent i t y' s] l egi t i mat e needs. ' " I d. at 2518 ( al t er at i ons i n

or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Ri cci v. DeSt ef ano, 557 U. S. 557, 578 ( 2009) ) .

I agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat di spar at e i mpact cl ai ms

must be exami ned caut i ousl y t o avoi d i nt er j ect i ng r aci al

consi der at i ons i nt o ever y agency deci si on and t o avoi d causi ng

pot ent i al def endant s to est abl i sh r aci al quot as. Maj . Op. at 19-

20 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . However , t her e ar e t wo pr obl ems wi t h

r el yi ng on t hose publ i c pol i cy consi der at i ons t o di smi ss t hi s case.

Fi r st , Pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms ar e not l i mi t ed t o di spar at e i mpact

concer ns. I ndeed, t hey r ai se ser i ous cont r over si es of mat er i al

f act r egar di ng conspi cuous act s of r et al i at i on. Second,

Pl ai nt i f f s never asked f or anyt hi ng cl ose t o est abl i shi ng quot as

t o guar ant ee t he empl oyment of Puer t o Ri can empl oyees. They

pr esent t r i abl e i ssues of mat er i al f act as t o whet her - - even

assumi ng t he val i di t y of FEMA' s j ust i f i cat i ons - - t hei r pr oposed

nondi scr i mi nat or y al t er nat i ves ser ved FEMA' s al l eged busi ness

necessi t y.

C. Pretext Analysis in Disparate Impact Claims

Even t hough Pl ai nt i f f s expr essl y conceded i n or al

argument t hat t hey do not advance any of t hei r cl ai ms as di spar ate


41/44

- 41 -

t r eat ment cl ai ms, t hi s does not change the r equi r ed anal ysi s f or

pr et ext under di spar at e i mpact and r et al i at i on. Ther ef or e,

Pl ai nt i f f s shoul d be gi ven t he chance t o pr ove t hat t hei r

al t er nat i ves t o FEMA' s al l eged busi ness needs def eated t he same,

and t hat t he adver se act i ons wer e r et al i at or y. I n addi t i on, t hey

shoul d be al l owed t o est abl i sh as par t of t hei r di spar at e i mpact

cl ai ms t hat t he j ust i f i cat i ons f or t he adver se act i ons wer e

pr et ext ual .

I n cases f or di spar at e i mpact t he anal ysi s i s al so

subj ect t o the wel l - known bur den- shi f t i ng st andar d, whi ch al l ows

a pl ai nt i f f t o pr ove pr et ext . See Al bemar l e Paper Co. v. Moody,

422 U. S. 405, 425 ( 1975) ( appl yi ng bur den- shi f t i ng anal ysi s f or

pr et ext i n a di spar at e i mpact case) ; see al so E. E. O. C. v. St eamshi p

Cl er ks Uni on, Local 1066, 48 F. 3d 594, 602 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( same) ;

Abbot t v. Fed. For ge, I nc. , 912 F. 2d 867, 876 ( 6t h Ci r . 1990)

( consi der i ng bur den- shi f t i ng anal ysi s and pr et ext i n a di spar at e

i mpact case) ; Br onze Shi el ds, I nc. v. N. J . Dept . of Ci vi l Ser v. ,

488 F. Supp. 723, 726- 27 ( D. N. J . 1980) ( appl yi ng bur den- shi f t i ng

anal ysi s and consi der i ng a 42 U. S. C. 20002- 2( h) def ense i n a

di spar at e i mpact cl ai m under Gr i ggs) .

I n f act , i n S. S. Cl er ks Uni on, Local 1066, 48 F. 3d at

601- 602, we di scussed ext ensi vel y t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he bur den-

shi f t i ng anal ysi s t o di spar at e i mpact cl ai ms. Havi ng expl ai ned

t he r equi r ement s f or a pr i ma f aci e showi ng, we went on t o st ate:


42/44

- 42 -

At t hat poi nt , t he def endant has sever al opt i ons.Fi r st , i t may at t ack t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr oof head- on,debunki ng i t s suf f i ci ency or at t empt i ng t o r ebut i t byadduci ng count er vai l i ng evi dence addr essed t o one ormor e of t he t hr ee const i t uent st r ands f r om whi ch t hepr i ma f aci e case i s woven, asser t i ng, say, t hat noi dent i f i abl e pol i cy exi sts, or t hat t he pol i cy' si mpl ement at i on pr oduces no di spar ate i mpact , or t hat t hepl ai nt i f f ' s empi r i cal cl ai mssuch as t he cl ai m ofcausat i onar e i nsuppor t abl e.

Al t er nat i vel y, t he def endant may conf ess and avoi d,acknowl edgi ng t he l egal suf f i ci ency of t he pr i ma f aci ecase but endeavor i ng t o show ei t her t hat t he chal l engedpr act i ce i s j ob- r el at ed and consi st ent wi t h busi nessnecessi t y, or t hat i t f i t s wi t hi n one or mor e of t heexpl i ci t st at ut or y except i ons cover i ng bona f i deseni or i t y syst ems, vet er ans' pr ef er ences, and t he l i ke.I n al l event s, however , a def endant ' s good f ai t h i s nota def ense t o a di spar at e i mpact cl ai m.

I f t he def endant f ai l s i n i t s ef f or t s to count ert he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr i ma f aci e case, t hen t he f actf i nder i sent i t l edt hough not necessar i l y compel l ed, t o ent erj udgment f or t he pl ai nt i f f . On t he ot her hand, even i ft he def endant st al emat es t he pr i ma f aci e case byel uci dat i ng a l egi t i mat e, nondi scri mi nat or y r at i onal ef or ut i l i z i ng t he chal l enged pr acti ce, t he pl ai nt i f f may

st i l l pr evai l i f she i s abl e t o establ i sh t hat t hepr of essed r at i onal e i s pr et ext ual . The pl ai nt i f f mi ghtdemonst r at e, f or exampl e, t hat some ot her pr act i ce,wi t hout a si mi l ar l y undesi r abl e si de ef f ect , wasavai l abl e and woul d have ser ved the def endant ' sl egi t i mat e i nt er est equal l y wel l . Such an exhi bi t i onconst i t ut es competent evi dence t hat t he def endant wasusi ng t he i nt er di ct ed pr act i ce mer el y as a ' pr et ext ' f ordi scr i mi nat i on.

I d. at 602 ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed)

( emphases added) . Based on t he above- ci t ed t ext , FEMA' s busi ness

necessi t y def ense i s st i l l subj ect t o def eat i f Pl ai nt i f f s can


43/44

- 43 -

pr ove pr et ext . Thus, Pl ai nt i f f s shoul d al so be al l owed t o pr ove

t hei r pr et ext ar gument bef or e a f act f i nder . 18

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, I woul d r emand t hi s case f or

t r i al . Pl ai nt i f f s deser ved a chance t o pr ove t hat thei r

al t ernat i ves t o FEMA' s adver se act i ons r easonabl y accommodat ed

FEMA' s busi ness necessi t i es - - t o t he ext ent t hat t hese wer e val i d

- - wi t hout havi ng a di spar ate i mpact agai nst t hem, and t hey shoul d

have a chance t o pr ove t hat t he r easons gi ven f or pl aci ng t hem i n

a r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an and t hen t er mi nat i ng t hem wer e

pr et ext ual . Speci f i cal l y, a j ur y shoul d deci de t he genui ne

di sput es as t o mat er i al f act r egar di ng: ( 1) whet her FEMA' s 2007

METAR i nspect i on and t he 2008 f ol l ow- up bui l di ng r evi ew were

causal l y rel at ed t o Pl ai nt i f f s' pr ot ect ed conduct ; ( 2) whet her t he

f i ndi ngs of t hese i nspect i ons suppor t FEMA' s al l eged busi ness

j ust i f i cat i ons f or t he r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an and t he

Pl ai nt i f f s' t ermi nat i on, par t i cul ar l y, i n l i ght of Pl ai nt i f f s'

chal l enges t o t he sever i t y of t he saf et y concer ns and t hei r

18 The maj or i t y ar gues t hat t hi s l ast st ep of t he bur den- shi f t i nganal ysi s r egar di ng pr et ext can be avoi ded i n di spar at e i mpact casesbecause t he Supr eme Cour t l ef t i t out of i t s r est at ement ofappl i cabl e l aw i n Ri cci , 557 U. S. at 578. However , i n Ri cci , t heCour t was quot i ng t he st at ut e i n 2000e- 2( k) ( 1) ( a) ( i ) , whi chcodi f i ed t he cause of act i on f or di spar at e i mpact r ecogni zed i nGr i ggs. That st atut ory t ext was enacted i n 1991, whi ch suggest st hi s cour t was awar e of i t when t he opi ni on was i ssued i n S. S.Cl er ks Uni on, Local 1066, i n 1995.


44/44

quest i oni ng of t he al l eged r educt i on i n oper at i onal needs; ( 3)

whether t he saf et y concerns r equi r ed FEMA t o cl ose t he PR Cent er

f or r epai r s si nce t he r ecord shows t hat t hese had never been a

concer n of FEMA, t he 2007 METAR r esul t s di d not r equi r e cl osi ng

f or r epai r s and havi ng a r ot at i onal st af f i ng pl an, whi l e al most

i dent i cal f i ndi ngs di d r equi r e so i n 2008, t he saf et y concer ns had

been cor r ect ed by t he t i me t he deci si on t o per manent l y cl ose t he

cent er was made, and si nce t he onl y mi ssi ng i t ems, i . e. , t he egr ess

pathway and r amp, wer e onl y l i st ed as "mi d- l ong t er m

r ecommendat i ons" ; ( 4) whet her Pl ai nt i f f s' nondi scr i mi nat or y

al t er nat i ves t o the adver se act i ons woul d not serve FEMA' s busi ness

necessi t i es; and (5) whet her FEMA' s j ust i f i cat i ons wer e

pr et ext ual .

For t he r easons st at ed, I di ssent .

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents