In a recent decision, the U.S. Fifth Circuit took a broader approach to evaluating seaman status, which could subject more maritime employers to claims brought under the Jones Act.

The Jones Act provides a seaman with a cause of action for negligence against his or her marine employer. Importantly, only those who qualify as seaman are entitled to bring claims under the Jones Act. As a general rule, Jones Act claims filed in state court cannot be removed to federal court. However, a Jones Act claim that is fraudulently pleaded, or pleaded where there is no possibility that the plaintiff can prove seaman status, may be removed in some instances.

On August 7, 2024, in Santee v. Oceaneering Int’l, Inc. Chevron USA, Inc., the Fifth Circuit considered the question of whether removal on this basis was proper.[1] In holding that the plaintiff, Shanon Roy Santee, did not fraudulently plead his Jones Act claim, the Court reinforced the protections provided to seamen under the Jones Act.

So, Who is a Seaman?

While the Jones Act does not specifically define the term “seaman,” the United States Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test to determine whether a party is a seaman under the Jones Act. In order to be a seaman:

1. The plaintiff must contribute to the function or mission of the vessel; and
2. The plaintiff must have a connection to the vessel that is substantial in duration and nature.[2]

The Fifth Circuit enumerated additional factors relevant to the second prong of the seaman-status test:

1. Whether the plaintiff is subject to “the perils of the sea,”
2. Whether the plaintiff owes “his allegiance to the vessel, rather than simply to a shoreside employer,”
3. Whether the plaintiff’s work is sea-based or involves seagoing activity, and
4. Whether the plaintiff’s assignment to the vessel is limited to an individual, isolated task, after which his connection to the vessel ends, rather than ongoing sea-based employment.[3]

Factual Background of Santee v. Oceaneering Int’l, Inc. Chevron USA, Inc.

In Santee, the plaintiff, a remote-operated vehicle (“ROV”) technician with more than twenty years of experience in the offshore drilling industry, filed suit against the defendants in Texas state court, bringing claims under the Jones Act, after he allegedly sustained a severe on-the-job injury.[4] In the course of his employment with Oceaneering, Santee worked aboard a drillship operated by Transocean and contracted by Chevron to provide underwater exploration and drilling services. The defendants sought to remove the suit to federal court. In response, Santee moved to remand the case to state court on the grounds that his claims were not removable due to his status as a Jones Act seaman. The defendants claimed that Santee fraudulently pleaded his Jones Act claims, therefore rendering them subject to removal.

District Court Ruling

The district court concluded that two of the four factors of the seaman-status test weighed against Santee, finding that his connection to the vessel was limited and not sufficiently extensive to justify seaman status. The court noted that Santee owed allegiance to his land-based employer that did not own or operate the vessel. Thus, the district court found that Santee fraudulently pleaded his Jones Act claim to avoid removal and denied Santee’s motion to remand the case to state court. The district court subsequently granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Santee was not a Jones Act seaman and, therefore, did not have a claim for negligence against his employer. Santee appealed the district court’s decision.

Fifth Circuit Decision

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit focused on the framework for evaluating seaman status. The Fifth Circuit determined that the first prong of the seaman-status test was “easily satisfied” because the ROV operations supported the vessel’s underwater drilling efforts, and Santee’s work clearly contributed to the function or mission of the vessel. Looking to the factors considered under the second prong of the test, the Fifth Circuit found that Santee’s ROV work was sea-based; Santee was subjected to the perils of the sea; his allegiance lied with both his shoreside employer and the vessel; and his assignment to the vessel was indefinite and was not limited to the performance of a discrete task after which his connection to the vessel ended.

Notably, the Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that Santee did not have allegiance to any vessel because his record of work locations showed that he was never permanently assigned to work aboard any one vessel or fleet of vessels. Instead, the Fifth Circuit found that such arguments “advance a restrictive view of the allegiance factor” not contemplated by the Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit. The Court concluded that the allegiance factor contemplates that a worker may have allegiance to both his shoreside employer and the vessel. Hence, the Fifth Circuit determined that Santee never being formally assigned to work aboard a specific vessel did not factor into whether he was substantially connected to the vessel and integral to its operations.

Finding that the district court’s reasoning was flawed, and all four factors of the second prong of the seaman-status test weighed in favor of Santee, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Santee had at least a possibility of proving that he is a Jones Act seaman. Thus, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court incorrectly determined that Santee fraudulently pleaded his Jones Act claim. Determining that the case was improperly removed on that basis, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to state court.

Impact on Marine Workers and Employers

This decision favors maritime workers seeking to bring claims under the Jones Act. Importantly, the Fifth Circuit rejected a restrictive or limited analysis of the seaman-status test. By acknowledging Santee’s status as a Jones Act seaman, the Fifth Circuit reinforced Jones Act protections afforded to maritime workers who owe their allegiance to both a land-based employer and a vessel.

Affording seaman status to maritime workers who are not formally assigned to work aboard a specific vessel and owe some allegiance to a land-based employer presents a more liberalized approach to examination of the seaman-status test. This more expansive assessment of the seaman-status test could subject more maritime employers to claims brought under the Jones Act. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Santee raises the question of how far courts will extend interpretation of seaman status within the meaning of the Jones Act in future disputes.

____________________

[1] Santee v. Oceaneering Int’l, Inc. Chevron USA, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20012 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2024)

[2] McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 354-55, 111 S. Ct. 807, 112 L. Ed. 2d 866 (1991)

[3] Sanchez v. Smart Fabricators of Tex., L.L.C., 997 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2021)

[4] ROVs are submersible machines that provide underwater visibility for offshore drilling operators and serve areas that are unreachable by human drivers.