Senegal v. Fairfield Industries Incorporated
Filing
280
MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part, denying in part 276 MOTION for Judgment (Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy K Johnson) Parties notified.(sjones, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DARNELL SENEGAL, individually
and on behalf of others
similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.
FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
d/b/a FAIRFIELD NODAL,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
April 26, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-2113
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the court1 is Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings as to Section 13(a)(12) Seaman Exemption (Doc.
276).
The court has considered the motion, the responses, all
other relevant filings, and the applicable law.
For the reasons
set forth below, the court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES it
in part.
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act2 (“FLSA”).3
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees (collectively “Plaintiffs”) their statutorily
1
The parties consented to proceed before the undersigned magistrate
judge for all proceedings, including trial and final judgment, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. See Doc. 46, Ord. Dated
Sept. 27, 2016.
2
See 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.
3
See Doc. 41, Pl.’s 1 st Am. Compl.
required overtime pay.4
A lengthier discussion of the case’s
background can be found in the court’s November 21, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion.5
In the present motion, Plaintiffs seek to prevent Defendant
from using the exemption to the FLSA’s coverage found in 29 U.S.C.
213(a)(12) (“Section 213(a)(12)”).
Section 213(a)(12) provides
that “any employee employed as a seaman on a vessel other than an
American vessel” is exempt from coverage under the FLSA.
Id.
Defendant has represented to the court that it is not relying
on a defense under Section 213(a)(12).6
Accordingly, at trial,
Defendant may not rely on a Section 213(a)(12) defense.
However,
the parties’ pleadings have indicated that the real issue is not
Section 213(a)(12), but rather the court’s holding regarding 29
U.S.C. § 213(f)(“Section 213(f)”).7
Thus, the court will clarify
its November 21, 2018 Memorandum Opinion as it pertains to Section
213(f).
Pursuant to Section 213(f), the FLSA does not apply “to any
employee whose services during the workweek are performed in a
workplace within a foreign country or within territory under the
4
See id.
5
See Doc. 274, Nov. 21, 2018 Mem. Op.
6
See Doc. 277 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Pleadings pp.
7
See Doc. 274, Nov. 21, 2018 Mem. Op. pp. 19-20.
5-6.
2
jurisdiction of the United States . . . .”8
At the summary
judgment stage, it was Defendant’s position that Section 213(f)
exempts any plaintiff from the FLSA who worked on a vessel overseas
regardless of whether the vessel was American or foreign-flagged.9
It was Plaintiff’s position that Section 213(f) does not apply to
work aboard vessels at all.10
In its Memorandum Opinion, the court found the reasoning in
Kaluom v. Stolt Offshore, Inc. persuasive. 474 F. Supp. 2d 866
(S.D. Tex. 2007).
The Kaluom court held that Section 213(f) does
not apply to vessels or seamen, but rather, applies to specific
geographic locations.
this
holding.
plaintiffs
vessels.
in
Thus,
the
See id. at
Section
present
879-880.
213(f)
action
The court agrees with
does
because
not
they
apply
worked
to
the
aboard
However, this does not mean, as Plaintiffs argue, that
the Plaintiffs are automatically covered by the FLSA just because
they worked aboard vessels.
Under the presumption against extraterritorial application, it
is well settled that “[a]bsent clearly expressed congressional
intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only
8
The following U.S. territories are an exception: “a State of the
United States; the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; the Virgin Islands; outer
Continental Shelf lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (ch.
345, 67 Stat. 462) [43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.]; American Samoa; Guam; Wake Island;
Eniwetok Atoll; Kwajalein Atoll; and Johnston Island.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(f).
9
See Doc. 242, Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. pp. 33-35.
10
See Doc. 185, Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. pp. 34-35.
3
domestic application.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S.
Ct. 2090, 2100 (2016).
Defendant has presented evidence that some Plaintiffs may have
worked aboard foreign-flagged vessels in foreign waters for some or
all of the relevant period.11
To apply the FLSA to Plaintiffs
during periods where they worked on foreign-flagged vessels in
foreign waters would be to apply the FLSA non-domestically.
The
FLSA is devoid of any congressional intent that it be applied to
workers aboard foreign-flagged vessels in foreign waters.
Thus,
Plaintiffs
while
are
Defendant
exempt
from
is
the
precluded
FLSA
from
under
arguing
Section
that
213(f),
Plaintiffs still must prove that they are covered by the FLSA.
For
any workweek where a Plaintiff worked exclusively aboard a foreignflagged vessel in foreign waters, that Plaintiff is not covered by
the FLSA for that workweek.
See Goodly v. Check-6, Inc., Civ. Act.
No. 16-CV-334-GKF-JFJ, 2018 WL 5316356, at *4-5 (N.D. Okla. Oct.
26, 2018)(holding that the FLSA did not “apply to workweeks in
which
the
plaintiffs
performed
all
work
exclusively
aboard
foreign-flagged vessels outside U.S. territorial waters and outside
the Gulf of Mexico”).
For the reasons set out above Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in
11
See Doc. 252, Ex. 14 to Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ.
J., Brad Lyles Dep. pp. 57-58; Doc. 251, Ex. 13 to Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for
Partial Summ. J., Neal Estay Dep. pp. 95-96; Doc. 253, Ex. 17 to Def.’s Resp. to
Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Gerald Price Dep. pp. 36-37; Doc. 250, Ex. 8 to
Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Nicholas Bradford Dep. p. 48.
4
part and DENIED in part.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas, this 26th day of April, 2019.
______________________________
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?