Cruise Ship Law

EMPLOYEE WHO HAD WORKED FOR EMPLOYER FOR SEVERAL YEARS AS SEAMAN BUT WHO WAS TRANSFERED TO STATIONARY BARGE PERFORMING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF NONSEAMAN'S WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE MAXIMUM HOUR AND OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WHICH EXEMPTS SEAMEN

BOBBY OWENS, on behalf of himself and all other employees of Sea River Maritime, Inc., similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SEARIVER MARITIME, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-60048
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
272 F.3d 698; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 23908; 7 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 732
November 6, 2001, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. 1:98-CV-436-BrR. David C Bramlette, III, US District Judge.

DISPOSITION: REVERSED and REMANDED.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer pursuant to the maximum hour and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq. The employee appealed the grant, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, of the employer's motion for summary judgment based on the employee's exemption from the FLSA as a seaman.

OVERVIEW: The employee had worked several years for the employer as a seaman. However, he was transferred to a "strike team" assigned to a stationary barge. The team performed work usually done by towboat crews, including loading and unloading product, but worked on unattended barges that were neither towed by the employer's boats nor attended by its crews. The employee attended the barges only for the purposes of loading and unloading product. The court of appeals disagreed with the district court's ruling that the employee was a seaman for purposes of the FLSA and thereby exempt from its overtime provisions. The court found that the employee performed a substantial amount of nonseaman's work, that is, loading and unloading petroleum product, which was the primary purpose of his employment, and the activity to which the employee devoted the most substantial portion of his working time. This activity only prepared vessels for navigation; it did not aid in its actual operation as a means of transportation.

OUTCOME: The court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment for the employer, and remanded for further proceedings.