Defendant Employer News

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a dispute between a seafarer and the employer/ship operator is subject to arbitration where the employment contract specifically provides for arbitration of such disputes. Plaintiff employees served on a cruise ship operated by defendant employer. They brought suit, alleging that they were not fully and promptly paid wages due. Defendant moved to compel arbitration in accordance with the employment contract. Plaintiffs contended that their employment contracts were exempt from compulsory arbitration. The dispute required interpretation of the relationship between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that an assertion by an employee that the employer failed to report illegal discharges of oil does not establish a right of action under the False Claims Act. In the instant case, plaintiff employee alleged that defendant employer, which operated offshore drilling units in the Gulf of Mexico under leases from the federal government, illegally dumped oil and other waste into waters of the Gulf and failed to report those discharges in its oil record book. The federal government declined to prosecute defendant for the alleged violations. Plaintiff filed an action against defendant under the False Claims Act, which allows a prevailing claimant to recover a portion of the false claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a crewmember who, at the direction of his supervisor, violates a Coast Guard regulation and later quits his employment has no cause of action against his employer for wrongful discharge. In the instant case, plaintiff was employed on defendant’s casino vessel as a licensed assistant engineer. He asserted that when there were not enough engine utilitymen working to comply with the vessel’s Coast Guard certificate of inspection, his supervisors ordered him to enter the name of an employee even though that employee was not actually present. After almost two years of making such false record entries and allegedly experiencing a hostile work environment, plaintiff quit his employment. He later filed this action against his employer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a ship owner may assert a negligence and indemnity claim against its seaman-employee for property damage allegedly caused by the seaman’s negligence. In the instant case, plaintiff mate was injured when his ship collided with another ship. Plaintiff was on watch and in command of the ship at the time and allegedly left the wheelhouse in congested waters to attend to personal business. Plaintiff brought suit against the other ship and against defendant employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Defendant settled with the other ship and then filed a counterclaim against plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim and defendant appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a deckhand might not be a seaman for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and that the issue is a question of fact. In the instant case, plaintiff sued her employer, a commuter ferry, for failure to pay overtime as required by the FLSA. Defendant employer moved for summary judgment, contending a deckhand is a seaman and that seamen are exempt from the FLSA overtime requirement. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed, contending that she merely took passenger’s tickets, loaded and unloaded passengers, and ensured the safe exiting of passengers. The court held that regulations promulgated by the U.S.