Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai
1997 U.S. LEXIS 2846, 137 L. Ed. 2d 800, 520 U.S. 548 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act based on a connection to a group of vessels, the employee must demonstrate that the vessels are under common ownership or control. Employment with a series of independent employers through a union hiring hall does not establish a substantial connection to an "identifiable group of vessels."
Facts:
- John Papai worked as a maritime laborer, securing short-term jobs through the Inland Boatman's Union (IBU) hiring hall.
- Over approximately two and a half years, he worked for various employers on different vessels, primarily performing deckhand, maintenance, and longshoring work.
- Harbor Tug & Barge Co. hired Papai for a one-day job to paint the housing of its tugboat, the Pt. Barrow, while it was docked.
- Papai was not a member of the Pt. Barrow's regular crew and was not scheduled to sail with the vessel after completing the painting.
- During this one-day assignment, Papai fell from a ladder and injured his knee.
- Prior to this incident, Papai had worked for Harbor Tug on 12 separate, short-term occasions in the preceding two and a half months.
Procedural Posture:
- John Papai sued Harbor Tug & Barge Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the Jones Act.
- Harbor Tug moved for summary judgment, arguing Papai was not a seaman.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Harbor Tug.
- Papai, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that a reasonable jury could find Papai was a seaman, and remanded the case for trial.
- Harbor Tug, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 a maritime worker who obtains short-term jobs with multiple, unaffiliated vessel owners through a union hiring hall have a 'substantial connection to an identifiable group of vessels' sufficient to qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A maritime worker who obtains short-term jobs with multiple, unaffiliated vessel owners does not have a 'substantial connection to an identifiable group of vessels' to qualify as a seaman. For a collection of vessels to be considered an 'identifiable group' for the purpose of the seaman status test, they must be subject to common ownership or control. The court reasoned that this requirement is essential to provide a clear, predictable standard for employers and employees to distinguish between sea-based workers covered by the Jones Act and land-based workers covered by the LHWCA. Merely using the same union hiring hall does not create the requisite common control. Allowing workers to aggregate their time with various independent employers would undermine the predictability of the Jones Act's coverage. Papai's connection to Harbor Tug's vessels was 'transitory or sporadic,' and his specific job when injured was a land-based task, not the work of a seaman exposed to the perils of the sea.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. A worker's seaman status should be determined by the overall character of their work, not by the employment structure of the industry. The majority's 'common ownership or control' rule is an artificial constraint not required by precedent like Chandris and unfairly deprives workers of seaman status simply because the industry operates on a daily assignment system through a hiring hall. If the majority of Papai's work for the group of employers using the hiring hall was seaman's work, he should be considered a seaman. The focus should be on the nature of the worker's duties in the labor market from which the employer hires, as this better reflects the reality of the employee's connection to sea-based work.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the 'identifiable group of vessels' concept for determining seaman status under the Jones Act. By establishing a bright-line rule requiring common ownership or control, the Court provides greater predictability for employers in distinguishing between Jones Act seamen and workers covered by the LHWCA. However, this clarification comes at the cost of excluding a class of itinerant or hiring-hall maritime workers from the protections of the Jones Act, even if the majority of their work is sea-based in nature. The ruling prioritizes doctrinal clarity over a more flexible, fact-intensive inquiry into the overall character of a worker's employment across different employers.
