Ali v. Rogers, No. 13-15145 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs were two Yemeni-born Muslim seamen who were United States citizens. Their civil rights action concerned a tanker ship owned by the United States Maritime Administration but operated by a private company under a contract. The first seaman alleged that the human resources director of the companying operating the ship ordered that he be fired because of his national origin. The second seaman alleged that he was not hired to work aboard the ship because of his religion and national origin. Both plaintiffs named the human resources director as a defendant but not the United States. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Plaintiffs’ claims both involved a contract for employment or potential employment aboard a public vessel of the United States and had a sufficient maritime connection, they were required to bring those claims against the United States.
Court Description: Admiralty Law. The panel affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a civil rights action brought by two Yemeni-born Muslim seamen. The first seaman’s claims concerned conduct aboard a tanker ship owned by the United States Maritime Administration, an agency of the federal government, but operated by a private company under a contract. The panel held that the conduct complained of had such a sufficient maritime connection that the seaman’s complaint included at least one claim that could have been brought as a “civil action in admiralty” against the private wrongdoers, and therefore, pursuant to the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Public Vessels Act, should have been brought against the United States. The panel held that these statutes, which are analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act, waive the government’s sovereign immunity in admiralty actions involving U.S. government- owned vessels, and in doing so provide the exclusive remedy for such actions. The second seaman alleged that he was not hired to work aboard the ship because of his religion and national origin, violating both his constitutional rights and his union’s collective bargaining agreement with the company. The panel held that because the seaman could have brought suit in admiralty for breach of the collective bargaining agreement ALI V. ROGERS 3 related to the crewing of the U.S.-owned vessel, his exclusive remedy was against the United States.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.