Opinion ID: 186445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Wal-Mart Violate the Standard?

Text: 10 Wal-Mart maintains the ALJ's holding that the conveyor rail system constituted an obstruction within the meaning of § 1910.37(k)(2) is unsupported. The ALJ reasoned that 11 [i]n an emergency situation, employees cannot be expected to unlatch the conveyor sections and push them apart, especially if there are boxes on the conveyor. Smoke could affect visibility, and employees could not see the latches. Employees could panic in an emergency and their first response might be to climb or jump over the system, which could result in injuries and time lost in reaching the exit. A distance of 20 feet to the exit, which is blocked by the conveyor rail system, is not insignificant as the employer contends since time is critical in an emergency. 12 Wal-Mart Super Center, 2004 WL 334495, at  4. Wal-Mart challenges this analysis on two grounds. First, Wal-Mart argues § 1910.37(k)(2) cannot be read literally to prohibit every obstruction that might delay an employee in reaching an exit during an emergency because the standard does not prohibit every condition that might cause a delay; by its terms the standard recognizes both that an exit door, which takes time to open, may be part of a means of egress, and that in an emergency employees may have to travel some distance—up to 400 feet in a facility such as Wal-Mart's—in order to reach an exit. 13 Because an exit door is itself a part of the means of egress, see 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(k)(2), however, it could not logically be considered an obstruction to a means of egress. Furthermore, although the standard does not require that each employee work immediately next to an emergency exit, that cannot mean, as Wal-Mart argues, an employer may obstruct a means of egress so long as the obstruction may be overcome by an employee who works near to it in less time than another employee, stationed farther away, could reach the exit in an emergency. That suggestion is wholly inconsistent with the clear command that [m]eans of egress shall be continuously maintained free of all obstructions or impediments to full instant use. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(k)(2). 14 Second, Wal-Mart says it did not obstruct the employees' means of egress because they could have exited the stockroom through the truck-bay doors, which they could reach without either climbing over or disassembling the conveyor rail system. As the ALJ explained, however, The truck bay doors are not a `safe access to a public way' since employees would be required to jump 4 feet to the ground and could be injured jumping that far. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(h)(1). Wal-Mart Super Center, 2004 WL 334495, at . Moreover, the truck-bay doors often were obstructed by trucks, and therefore were not readily accessible at all times, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(f)(1) (2000), and could not be considered the exits contemplated by 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.35(a)-(c) and 1910.37(a)-(f) (2000). 15 In sum, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding the conveyor rail system constituted an obstruction within the meaning of § 1910.37(k)(2) and Wal-Mart has not shown the ALJ's interpretation of that standard to be unreasonable. 16