California District Court Says State Wage Laws Do Not Apply Offshore

California District Court Says State Wage Laws Do Not Apply Offshore 

By: Bryan O’Neill

Williams v. Brinderson Constructors Inc., CV 15-2474-MWF, 2015 WL 4747892, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015)Plaintiffs brought suit against Brinderson asserting seven claims for relief for violations of California wage, hour, and minimum wage laws. Brinderson provides services to energy-related industries, including oil platforms off the coast of California on which Plaintiffs typically worked twelve hour shifts seven days on and seven off. Plaintiffs could not leave the platform during their seven day shift and allege that they were only paid for the twelve hour shifts they worked those days, violating California labor law.Plaintiffs asserted seven claims for relief including: failure to pay minimum wage for all the time when Plaintiffs were on the oil platforms, but could not leave and six other violations of California labor law. Brinderson sought dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing that California law does not apply to the oil platforms on which Plaintiffs worked, but the FLSA governs the employment relationship. The court agreed with Brinderson and granted the Motion, except in regard to the Plaintiffs fifth claim which was governed by California law per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Brinderson and the USW.The court established that California law does not apply except as provided in the CBA. The parties did not contest that the OCSLA governs the oil platforms, and the court is quick to point out that the OCSLA adopts the criminal and civil laws of the adjacent state to the extent that they are “not inconsistent with… Federal law.” 43 U.S.C. §1333(a). The issue before the court was whether the FLSA serves a floor upon which states are able to expand even within federal enclaves such as oil platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf and its legal effect as a comprehensive federal legal regime governing employment.The court looked to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., where the Supreme Court explained, “[t]he intent behind OCSLA was to treat the artificial structures covered by the Act as upland islands or as federal enclaves within a landlocked State.” 395 U.S. 352 (1969). Based on Rodrigue, the court determined that California labor law is not incorporated as federal law under the OCSLA because: 1) the FLSA is a sufficient federal statutory scheme such that state law is unnecessary and 2) California law is inconsistent with federal law as articulated by the Ninth Circuit.Plaintiffs also argued that the CBA states that their claims are governed by California law, but Brinderson noted the only reference to California law in the CBA is with regard to meal and rest breaks. The court stated that a singular reference to California law does not constitute an agreement between the parties that all disputes will be governed by California law. However, it did indicate that California law applies to Plaintiffs in regards to rest and meal breaks. Therefore, Plaintiffs' claim for relief in regards to meal and rest breaks was governed by California law as a matter of contract.Because the Court determined that California employment law does not apply to the Outer Continental Shelf, it did not have to address Brinderson's arbitration argument, except as to Plaintiffs' fifth claim for meal and rest breaks. Nonetheless, the Court outlined what its ruling would have been for all claims, in case of appeal.