Ramirez v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183726, 991 F.Supp.2d 1187, 2013 WL 6981941 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, a mandatory arbitration clause in an international seaman's employment contract is enforceable, including its forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions, unless the party resisting arbitration can prove that the remedies available in the chosen forum are so inadequate as to be fundamentally unfair.
Facts:
- Shelma Ramirez, a citizen of Nicaragua, was employed by NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. ('NCL') to work on its cruise ships.
- Ramirez's employment was governed by a Contract of Employment and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
- Both agreements contained a mandatory clause requiring any and all employment-related disputes, including personal injury claims, to be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration.
- The arbitration clause specified the location of the arbitration would be the seaman's home country (Nicaragua) and the governing law would be that of the vessel's flag state (the Bahamas).
- On or about May 24, 2009, Ramirez injured her back and Achilles tendon while working aboard the Norwegian Pearl, a Bahamian-flagged vessel.
- Ramirez alleged that NCL failed to provide prompt and adequate medical treatment for her back injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Shelma Ramirez filed a four-count complaint against NCL in a Florida state court.
- NCL removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, citing federal law related to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
- In the U.S. District Court, NCL filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration based on Ramirez's employment agreement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a mandatory arbitration clause in a foreign seaman's employment contract, which requires arbitration in the seaman's home country under the law of the vessel's flag state, enforceable under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards?
Opinions:
Majority - Lenard, J.
Yes. A mandatory arbitration clause in a foreign seaman's employment contract is enforceable under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The court reasoned that its inquiry is very limited when deciding a motion to compel arbitration under the Convention. It must order arbitration if four jurisdictional prerequisites are met and no affirmative defenses apply. Here, all four prerequisites from the controlling precedent, Bautista v. Star Cruises, were met: (1) there was a written agreement, (2) providing for arbitration in a signatory country (Nicaragua), (3) arising from a commercial relationship, and (4) involving non-U.S. citizens. The court, bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent in Bautista and Lindo v. NCL, rejected Ramirez's primary argument that seaman's contracts are exempt from arbitration. The court also dismissed Ramirez's alternative arguments, finding that NCL's refusal to pay all arbitration costs was not an anticipatory breach because the CBA only required such payment when the seaman was represented by the union, which Ramirez was not. Finally, the court upheld the forum-selection (Nicaragua) and choice-of-law (Bahamian law) clauses because Ramirez failed to show that the remedies available in that forum under that law were so inadequate as to be fundamentally unfair.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, especially in the context of international agreements governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. It solidifies the high threshold plaintiffs must meet to invalidate forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses, requiring a showing of 'fundamental unfairness' rather than merely demonstrating that a foreign forum offers less favorable remedies than U.S. law. The decision underscores that district courts are strictly bound by controlling circuit precedent, thereby limiting their ability to create new exceptions to arbitration, even for categories of workers like seamen who have historically received special protection under U.S. law. The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for foreign seamen working for foreign cruise lines to bring personal injury claims in U.S. courts.
