Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray
1985 U.S. LEXIS 64, 84 L. Ed. 2d 406, 470 U.S. 414 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Employment on a fixed offshore oil-drilling platform does not constitute "maritime employment" for the purposes of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), as such work is related to oil and gas exploration rather than the traditional maritime activities of loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel.
Facts:
- Robert Gray was employed by Herb's Welding, Inc., as a welder.
- Herb's Welding provided welding services to owners of offshore oil-drilling platforms in the Bay Marchand field off the Louisiana coast.
- Gray's work involved building and replacing pipelines and performing general maintenance on fixed drilling platforms.
- The platforms were located in both Louisiana state territorial waters and on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
- On July 11, 1975, Gray was welding a gas flow line on a fixed platform situated in Louisiana's territorial waters.
- An explosion occurred, and Gray injured his knee while running from the blast area.
- Gray spent approximately three-quarters of his working time on platforms in state waters and the remainder on platforms on the OCS.
- He ate and slept on a platform located in Louisiana state waters.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Gray filed a complaint with the Department of Labor after his LHWCA claim was denied by his employer's insurance carrier, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing and denied benefits, concluding that Gray's work did not satisfy the LHWCA's 'status' requirement for maritime employment.
- Gray appealed to the Benefits Review Board, which reversed the ALJ's decision. The Board found Gray was entitled to benefits under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (Lands Act).
- Herb’s Welding, Inc. and its insurer (petitioners) sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of benefits but on the alternative ground that Gray's work directly satisfied the LHWCA's 'status' requirement for maritime employment, without reaching the Lands Act issue.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 worker's employment on a fixed offshore oil-drilling platform located in state territorial waters constitute 'maritime employment' under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. A worker on a fixed offshore oil-drilling platform is not engaged in 'maritime employment' under the LHWCA. The Court reasoned that to be covered by the LHWCA, a worker must satisfy both a 'situs' (location) test and a 'status' (nature of work) test. Relying on its precedent in Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., the Court treated fixed platforms as artificial islands, holding that accidents on them have no more connection to traditional admiralty concerns than accidents on piers. The Court concluded that Congress, in amending the LHWCA in 1972, intended the 'maritime employment' status test to apply to workers engaged in the core functions of loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel. Gray's work as a welder on oil and gas pipelines was not inherently maritime and was analogous to work performed on land, thus failing the status test.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. A worker on a fixed offshore drilling platform should be considered engaged in 'maritime employment.' The dissent argued that the majority's reliance on pre-1972 admiralty law like Rodrigue was misplaced, as the very purpose of the 1972 LHWCA amendments was to eliminate arbitrary, locality-based coverage distinctions. The dissent contended that Gray was an 'amphibious worker' who spent his entire professional life on or traveling over water, facing maritime hazards. The majority's decision recreates the 'incongruous' coverage gaps Congress sought to eliminate, as an identical worker on a floating rig would be covered while Gray is not. Furthermore, a fixed rig functions as a covered 'situs' because it is an area adjoining navigable waters customarily used for loading and unloading vessels, meaning Gray's entire occupation takes place within the Act's intended geographic scope.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the 'maritime employment' requirement under the LHWCA, effectively excluding workers in the offshore oil and gas industry on fixed platforms from the Act's coverage. By tying the 'status' test to traditional longshoring and shipbuilding activities, the Court created a bright-line rule that distinguishes between work on fixed platforms (non-maritime) and work on floating vessels (maritime). This holding solidified the status requirement as a significant, independent hurdle for coverage, separate from the situs of the injury, and perpetuated a 'checkered coverage' scheme where a worker's eligibility for federal benefits could depend on the type of structure they work on or its precise geographic location (state waters vs. Outer Continental Shelf).
