ALTHOUGH LAUNCH OPERATORS' DUTIES OF SHUTTLING PILOTS TO BOATS AND MONITORING RADIO CONSTITUTED SEAMEN'S WORK UNDER FSLA, MANY OF THEIR HANDYMAN DUTIES DID NOT. BECAUSE EVIDENCE WAS CONFLICTING AS TO HOW MUCH TIME OPERATORS SPENT ON EACH DUTY, SUMMARY JUD
J. DANIEL GODARD, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALABAMA PILOT, INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27009
April 10, 2007, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:Plaintiff launch operators filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended, 29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq., seeking to recover overtime compensation from defendant employer. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the employer arguing that the operators were seamen and therefore were exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA under 29 U.S.C.S. § 213(b)(6).
OVERVIEW: The employer operated a piloting service. The operators' job entailed shuttling pilots to and from vessels that were leaving port. This duty comprised a maximum of 29.5% of the operators' work time. The operators performed other duties, such as monitoring the radio and performing handyman work around the station. The employer alleged that the operators were seaman and thus were exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The court held that (1) whether the operators were "seamen" was determined by rules promulgated under the FSLA, not by the Jones Act definition of "seamen"; (2) the 20% rule, which stated that an employee who spent more than 20% of his time performing tasks that were not rendered primarily as an aid in the operation of a vessel as a means of transportation were not exempt from the FSLA's overtime requirements, applied; (3) the operators' shuttling and radio watch duties constituted seamen's work under the FSLA, but the handyman duties that did not entail the maintenance of the launch vessels did not; and (4) the evidence was conflicting as to how much time the operators spent on non-seaman endeavours, which prevented the court from granting summary judgment.
OUTCOME: The court denied the cross-motions for summary judgment.
