The Never-ending Story of Seaman’s Status:Nature of Connection Test For Seaman’s Status Called Into Question
Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators Of Texas, LLC., 2020 WL 4726062 (5th Cir., Aug. 14, 2020).
Seaman’s status has been litigated continuously over the past 50+ years due to development of offshore minerals and special purpose facilities built for the extraction of the minerals in marshlands and beyond the coastlines of mainly Gulf South states.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court again reexamined seaman status in McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander[2] and Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis.[3]
Gilbert Sanchez was employed for 67 days by Smart Fabricators as a welder and was injured while working on a rig owned and operated by Enterprise Offshore Drilling LLC. He spent 3% of his time in the shop onshore, 6% on a vessel owned by Ensco (another company not involved in the litigation), 72% of his time on ENTERPRISE WFD 350 which was adjacent to an inland pier and 19% on another Enterprise rig (ENTERRPISE 263) which was on the Outer Continental Shelf.[4]
Suit was initially filed in state court and then removed to federal court for the Southern District of Texas. Sanchez filed a motion to remand, asserting that his suit was not removable as he was a seaman. The trial court denied the motion to remand and then granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Sanchez was not a seaman as he could not prove that his connection to the vessel was substantial in nature. On appeal, the initial panel, consisting of Judges Higginbotham, Ho and Engelhardt (with Judge Higginbotham writing the opinion), affirmed the trial court denying seaman’s status and upholding the removal.[5]
That opinion was withdrawn on April 14, 2020 and reheard by a new panel consisting of Judges Davis, Jones, and Willett.[6] The new panel, with Judge Davis writing the majority and concurring opinion, reversed the trial court holding that Fifth Circuit precedent established in both In re Endeavor Marine Inc.[7], and Naquin v. Elevating Boats, LLC.[8], made it clear that a worker exposed to the perils of the sea is a seaman, even if the vessel is docked or anchored at a pier. (Judge Davis was the author of the opinion in Naquin.)
However, in his concurring opinion, Judge Davis (in which the other members of the panel joined), opines that the precedent of the Fifth Circuit interpreting both Wilander and Chandris is inconsistent with those decisions of the Supreme Court. As such, he stated, “It is clear to me that Sanchez was a land-based fitter and welder whose duties did not take him to sea; consequently, he does not qualify as a seaman.”[9] The precedent of the Fifth Circuit, in his opinion and of the other members of the panel, has not correctly interpreted the “nature element of the substantial connection requirement.”[10] Sanchez satisfied the duration prong of the substantial connection requirement but not the nature element of that requirement. “His work was essentially land-based, never exposing him to the perils of the sea.”[11] He urged the court to rehear the case en banc to bring its jurisprudence in line with the Supreme Court’s.
[1] Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1959); see also Gianfala v. Texas Company, 350 U.S. 879 (1955) (reversing Texas Company v. Gianfala, 222 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1955)).
[2] 498 U.S 337 (1991).
[3] 515 U.S. 347, 354 (1995).
[4] 2020 WL 4726062, at *1.
[5] 952 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2020).
[6] See 2020 WL 4726062 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020).
[7] 234 F.3d 287, (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
[8] 744 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 2014).
[9] 2020 WL 4726062, at *4.
[10] 2020 WL 4726062, at *5.
[11] Id.
.
