Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States
458 U.S. 564 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the maritime wage penalty statute, 46 U.S.C. § 596, once a court finds that a vessel owner has withheld a seaman's wages 'without sufficient cause,' the court has no discretion to limit the penalty period and must award the seaman double wages for each day the payment is delayed until it is actually paid.

Facts:

On February 18, 1976, petitioner Griffin signed an employment contract to work as a welder for respondent Oceanic Contractors, Inc. on its vessels in the North Sea.
The contract allowed Oceanic to withhold a portion of Griffin's pay as a deposit for his return transportation if he quit or was terminated for cause.
On April 1, 1976, Griffin was injured while working on Oceanic's vessel.
On April 5, an Oceanic superintendent refused to acknowledge the injury was work-related, denied liability for medical expenses, refused to pay for Griffin's transportation home, and withheld $412.50 in earned wages that had been deducted for that transportation deposit.
Griffin returned to the United States at his own expense and was cleared to resume work on May 3, 1976.
On May 5, 1976, Griffin began working for another company.

Procedural Posture:

In 1978, petitioner Griffin sued respondent Oceanic Contractors, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, alleging Jones Act and general maritime law claims, including a claim for penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. § 596.
The District Court found for Griffin, determining that Oceanic had withheld $412.50 in wages 'without sufficient cause.'
However, the District Court, exercising what it believed to be its 'sound discretion,' limited the penalty period to 34 days—the time Griffin was unemployed—resulting in a penalty of $6,881.60.
Griffin appealed the damages award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing the limitation on the penalty period was error.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that circuit precedent allowed district courts to use their discretion in setting the penalty period.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits on this issue.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the maritime wage penalty statute, 46 U.S.C. § 596, permit a district court to exercise discretion in limiting the period for which double-wage penalties are assessed once it is determined that wages were withheld without sufficient cause?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rehnquist

No. The maritime wage penalty statute, 46 U.S.C. § 596, does not permit a district court to exercise discretion in limiting the penalty period. The plain language of the statute is unambiguous and dictates that once the two conditions—(1) failure to pay wages on time and (2) lack of sufficient cause for the failure—are met, the penalty of double wages for 'each and every day during which payment is delayed' is mandatory. The legislative history confirms Congress's intent to remove judicial discretion and strengthen the statute's coercive, deterrent effect. While the resulting award may seem disproportionate or punitive, it is the remedy Congress prescribed, and any change must come from the legislature, not the courts. The only place for equitable considerations is in determining whether the employer's initial failure to pay was 'without sufficient cause,' not in calculating the duration of the penalty once that determination is made.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. The statute should be interpreted to permit judicial discretion in calculating the penalty period to avoid absurd and unjust results. A literal reading that produces a windfall award of over $300,000 for $412.50 in withheld wages cannot reflect the true will of Congress. For over 50 years, federal courts, including the Supreme Court in cases like Pacific Mail S.S. Co. v. Schmidt, consistently applied the statute flexibly, allowing subsequent events to foreshorten the penalty period by finding 'sufficient cause' for continued delay. The District Court's decision to limit the penalty to the period of unemployment aligns with this long-standing, equitable interpretation, which is more faithful to the statute's compensatory purpose than the majority's rigid, literal approach.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies a strict, literalist approach to statutory interpretation, particularly for penalty statutes. It significantly curtails the equitable discretion that lower federal courts had historically exercised in applying 46 U.S.C. § 596, shifting the focus of the judicial inquiry solely to whether there was 'sufficient cause' for the initial nonpayment. The ruling establishes that the penalty is mandatory and runs until payment is made, creating a powerful deterrent for employers against unlawfully withholding seamen's wages. It signals that even seemingly disproportionate or harsh outcomes are to be enforced if they result from the plain meaning of a statute, leaving remedies for such results to Congress.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature