No Federal Protection For Seaman Who Is Wrongfully Discharged For Refusing To Violate A Federal Safety Statute. Employer Granted Summary Judgment Pursuant To Employment-At-Will Doctrine.
RAYMOND ZBYLUT, Plaintiff, vs. HARVEY'S IOWA MANAGEMENTCOMPANY INC. and/or HARVEY'S CASINO, Defendant.
CIVIL NO. 1-00-CV-10076
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFIOWA, WESTERN DIVISION
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3752
February 28, 2003, Decided
DISPOSITION: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer and alleged that he was wrongfully terminated for refusing to violate a federal safety statute, and that he was constructively discharged due to his resistance to the employer's allegedly illegal practices. The employer moved for summary judgment and argued that general admiralty and maritime law did not provide a private cause of action for wrongful discharge.
OVERVIEW: The employee, an at-will employee, worked as a licensed engineer aboard the employer's casino vessel. The employee alleged that he was personally ordered to falsify the engine room log books in violation of a federal safety statute. The employee alleged that after he complained about falsifying the engine room books he was ostracized by his superior officers in the engineering department and subjected to constant harassment. The employee alleged that the working environment was so unbearable that he was forced to leave. The court found that admiralty and general maritime law did not recognize an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine where the employee was discharged for the refusal to violate a federal safety regulation. Thus, recognizing a federal cause of action in that instance would have exceeded the scope of the judiciary's power. The chief engineer and other engine room employees' conduct did not render the employee's work environment so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's position would have been compelled to resign as was evidenced by the fact that the employee continued working for nearly eight months after the alleged conduct started.
OUTCOME: The employer's motion for summary judgment was granted. The clerk of court was directed to enter judgment in favor of the employer and against the employee.
