Workers on specialized vessels misclassified as seamen: Court

Workers on specialized vessels misclassified as seamen: Court
Judy Greenwald February 12, 2021 https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20210212/NEWS06/912339791/Work...

A federal appeals court overturned a lower court ruling Thursday and held that workers on specialized vessels were not seamen, and therefore should have been paid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lafayette, Louisiana-based All Coast LLC owns and operates a fleet of self-elevating, self-propelled, offshore supply vessels called liftboats, according to Thursday’s ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in William Adams v. All Coast LLC.

All Coast did not pay the plaintiffs who worked on the liftboats overtime because it classified them as seamen, who are exempt from overtime pay rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the act, workers must be paid at least time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours per week.

Mr. Adams filed suit against the company on behalf of himself and other workers, arguing “his main duty had nothing to do with maritime work,” the ruling said.

Instead, he “spent much of his time operating a hydraulic crane to move personnel and equipment between the liftboat and the dock, offshore worksite platforms, and other vessels as well as on the liftboat itself,” the ruling said.

The U.S. District Court in New Orleans granted All Coast summary judgment in dismissing the case, holding the workers had been accurately classified as seamen because the liftboat crane operation was a “service which is rendered primarily as an aid in the operation of such vessel as a means of transportation.”

The ruling was overturned by a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel, which said the lower court’s decision ”runs contrary to the regulatory language and our decisions interpreting it.”

“By the regulation’s plain language, when the crew assists with loading or unloading, or with ‘essentially industrial’ tasks, that portion of their time is not seaman’s work. The record shows that the plaintiffs spent a significant amount of time doing just that,” it said.

“Nor does the regulation suggest anything unique about the plaintiffs’ loading and unloading that would lead us to a different conclusion,” it said.

“Our previous decisions only reinforce” the conclusion the workers were not seamen, the ruling said in reversing the district court and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Mr. Adams’ attorney, Curt Hesse, a partner with Moore and Associates in Houston, said in a statement, “We are very pleased with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. It underscores what we said throughout the case: The seaman exemption only applies to mariners in the traditional sense of the word. It doesn’t apply to workers who perform industrial-type work, which is what our clients in fact did.”

All Coast’s attorneys did not return a request for comment