Fight over wages can give rise to federal admiralty jurisdiction
September, 2007
By
Marilyn Raia
Gruver v. Lesman Fisheries
489 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007)
Gruver was a deckhand for Lesman Fisheries aboard the shrimp and crab boat F/V SUNSET CHARGE. Lesman was the owner and captain of the boat. Gruver quit his job on the SUNSET CHARGE to work another vessel. However, he was still owed some wages at the time he quit. Over several weeks, Gruver apparently left threatening messages for Lesman and at least once, angrily confronted Lesman on the SUNSET CHARGE over the unpaid wages. Following these incidents, Lesman went to the boat where Gruver was then working and a fight broke out between Lesman and Gruver. Gruver's resulting injuries led to his being hospitalized for several days.
Gruver filed a complaint for negligence and unpaid wages in federal district court against Lesman, Lesman Fisheries, Inc. and the SUNSET CHARGE pursuant to maritime law. The unpaid wage claim was settled and dismissed. Thereafter, Lesman filed a motion to dismiss the negligence claim based on a lack of federal admiralty jurisdiction. The motion was granted and Gruver's complaint was dismissed.
Upon review, the Ninth Circuit considered whether a fight over wages between a seaman and his employer could give rise to admiralty jurisdiction. A party seeking to establish federal admiralty jurisdiction must satisfy both a location test and a connection test. The parties did not dispute that Gruver's claim met the location test because the fight occurred onboard a vessel located in navigable waters. However, to meet the connection test, Gruver had to establish that (1) the incident had a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and (2) the "general character of the activity giving rise to the incident showed a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity." Lesman conceded that resolving a disagreement with crewmembers through physical violence could render the crewmember unable to perform his fishing duties and thus have a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce. Therefore, the only question for the Ninth Circuit was whether the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident showed a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.
The Ninth Circuit first determined that the failure to pay wages was the activity giving rise to the incident. In doing so it rejected the suggestion that the assault could be both the "incident" and the "activity giving rise to the incident." The court reiterated that the "relevant activity" is not merely the event immediately surrounding the injury but the behavior of any putative tortfeasor that is an arguably proximate cause of the injury. Under this analysis the court found that it was the wage dispute that led Lesman to board the boat where Gruver was located and it was the wage dispute that precipitated the fight.
Having determined that the wage dispute was the activity giving rise to the incident, the Ninth Circuit determined that paying seamen for their work at sea has a substantial relationship to maritime activities. The Ninth Circuit thus found federal admiralty jurisdiction existed and remanded the action to the District Court.