OH HALLE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT! THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ITS NARROW APPROACH TO SEAMEN UNDER THE FLSA.

• Author: Seitzinger, Tessa L.
• Position: Fair Labor Standards Act

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 192 II. Facts & Holding 193 III. Background 195 A. Legislative History 195 B. FLSA Litigation in the Fifth Circuit 196 IV. The Fifth Circuit Court's Decision in Halle 199 V. Analysis 202 When he felt the time was ripe, President Roosevelt asked Secretary of Labor Perkins, "What happened to that nice unconstitutional bill you had tucked away?" (1)

1. INTRODUCTION

   The Supreme Court of the United States was considered to be a major obstacle in the fight to create wage-hour and child-labor laws due to the Supreme Court's constant assertion that creation of such laws would be violations of liberty of contract. (2) After President Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1936 election, he was determined to overcome the obstacle of the Supreme Court. Roosevelt struck back by proposing to "pack" the Court by adding up to six extra judges, one for each judge who did not retire at age seventy. Roosevelt further voiced his disappointment with the Court at the victory dinner for his second inauguration where he expressed that "...[T]he American form of Government [is] a three horse team...[t]he three horses are, of course, the three branches of government--the Congress, the Executive and the Courts. Two of the horses are pulling in unison...the third is not." (3) President Roosevelt urged the "three-horse team" to work together to achieve the goal of providing the American people with labor reform. Fortunately for President Roosevelt and the American people, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was eventually deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court and became effective October 24, 1938. Many years later, the Fifth Circuit continues this goal demonstrating the hallmark of any good decision--consistency--in Halle v. Galliano Marine Services, L.L.C. (4)

2. FACTS & HOLDING

   In the April 2017 decision, Halle v. Galliano Marine Services, L.L.C., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was presented an issue of first impression regarding whether a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Technician is classified as a "seamen" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (5) overtime pay provisions. (6) The plaintiff sought to recover overtime wages, damages, and attorney fees due under the FLSA (7) The defendant argued that the plaintiff was exempt as a "seaman" under the FLSA because the ROV was attached to the ROV Support Vessel, and any navigation, maintenance, service done to the ROV was essentially done to the vessel itself. (8)

   At the district court level, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff's work as an ROV Technician and Supervisor was "water-based, voyage-based, and vessel-based," which makes the plaintiff a "seaman" exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. (9) In support of this argument, defendants submitted an affidavit from the company's Operations Manager attesting that plaintiff reported to the Captain of the ROV Support Vessel during the plaintiff's time on the ship. (10)

   The district court used a two-prong approach to determine the FLSA seaman status of the plaintiff. The first prong of the test asks whether the employee performs as "master or subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master aboard a vessel." (11) Once the first prong is satisfied, the second prong evaluates whether the "employee's service is primarily offered to aid the vessel as a means of transportation." (12) The defendants argued that the plaintiff met the first prong of the seaman exemption test under the FLSA because "he was subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master of a vessel." (13)

   Under the second prong, the defendants contended that plaintiff's work qualified him as a seaman because "his service was primarily offered to aid the vessel as means of transportation," and he "was tied to a specific vessel for the duration of the voyage, and ate, slept, lived, and worked aboard that vessel." (14) Additionally, the defendants argued the plaintiff's "work was tied to the vessel," because "he navigated, maintained, serviced, and repaired underwater vehicles that were attached to the vessel." (15) The defendants last argument claimed that the plaintiff communicated to the captain about navigational issues as he navigated his own ROVs and observed the water conditions--contributing to the safe navigation of the support vessel. (16)

   The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana agreed with the defendants, granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's claim with prejudice. (17) The district court resorted to resolving the FLSA case with certain legal standards, such as the definition of a "seaman" using the Jones Act. (18) When resolving questions on the issue of seaman status under the Jones Act, a plaintiff must present evidence that (1) the injured workman was assigned permanently to the vessel, and (2) the capacity in which he was employed or duties which the seaman performed contributed to the function of the vessel. (19) The legal standard for analyzing the definition of a "seaman" using FLSA is completely different in comparison to the Jones Act analysis. In addition, the district court agreed that the ROVs were vessels and that plaintiff's control and command of the ROV satisfied the first prong, noting plaintiff performed as "master or subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master aboard the vessel." (20)

   On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (21) The Fifth Circuit found that (1) it had not been established as a matter of law that the seaman exemption applies in this case because there is no evidence to suggest that ROVs are vessels and (2) the definition of "seaman" in the Jones Act is not equivalent to that the definition in the FLSA. (22) The case was then remanded for further proceedings. Halle v. Galliano Marine Serv., 855 F.3d 290, 296 (5th Cir. 2017).

3. BACKGROUND

   1. Legislative History

      As part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 due to poor working...