Senegal v. Fairfield Industries Incorporated, No. 4:2016cv02113 - Document 280 (S.D. Tex. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part, denying in part 276 MOTION for Judgment (Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy K Johnson) Parties notified.(sjones, 4)

Download PDF

Senegal v. Fairfield Industries Incorporated Doc. 280 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. Dockets.Justia.com 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

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.