En Banc 5th Circuit Fashions New Test For Jones Act Seaman Status: Nature of the Work Prong Must Be Satisfied
Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Tex., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 13929 *, 2021 WL 1882565 (5th Cir., May 11, 2021)
A unanimous en banc U.S. Fifth Circuit released its awaited opinion in Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Tex. on May 11, 2011. Sanchez sued his employer in state court alleging Jones Act Status claiming injuries while working rigs owned by Enterprise Offshore Drilling, LLC. After removal to federal court and a Motion to Remand which was denied, an interlocutory appeal was filed with the Fifth Circuit. The first panel upheld that trial court’s order denying remand; but on rehearing by a second different panel, the trial judge was reversed. But, that panel unanimously agreed that the Fifth Circuit jurisprudence on Jones Act status required review by the en banc court.
Judge Davis authored the unanimous opinion (Judge Dennis wrote a concurring opinion stating that an article by Prof. David Robertson, 34 J. MAR. L. & COM. 547, 548 (2003) serves as a guide for status in future cases) which ultimately determined that Sanchez does not satisfy “the requirement that he be substantially connected to a fleet of vessels in terms of the nature of his work” (2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 13929 *1).
The court distilled the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court into the following additional criteria for status under the Jones Act:
We therefore conclude that the following additional inquiries should be made:
(1) Does the worker owe his allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to a shoreside employer?
(2) Is the work sea-based or involve seagoing activity?
(3) (a) Is the worker's assignment to a vessel limited to performance of a discrete task after which the worker's connection to the vessel ends, or (b) Does the worker's assignment include sailing with the vessel from port to port or location to location? (Id. at *20)
Applying these standards to the case at bar: though Sanchez spent 90% of his time with the employer on rigs owned by Enterprise and fulfilled the duration prong of the substantiality test, he did not satisfy the “nature prong” of the status test as his work was not sea-based. Crews on drilling rigs are of two types: (1) those in the drilling crew who stay with the vessel and are seamen; and (2) specialized transient workers who go out on specific jobs for short periods of time (Id. at *26-27). The work Sanchez performed was analogous to the work performed by the claimant in Harbor Tug and Barge Co. v. Papai (520 U.S. 548 (1997)), in which the Supreme Court determined that the claimant was not a seaman as he lacked the “nature of the work prong” of the status test.
Follow this link to the opinion: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-20506-CV2.pdf
