|
|
|
| Jones Act - General Description of Jones Act | |||||||||
| Sunday, 02 August 2009 23:51 | |||||||||
|
Case Name: Jeremy Selby v Yacht Starship, Inc., and Troy Manthey Date Decided: August 20, 2008 Court: U.S.D.C. M.D. Florida Citation: 2008 WL 3889625 (M.D. Fla.) Background: Plaintiff worked for Starship and was classified by the defendants as a full-time marine crew member. During the pertinent period the plaintiff served as an engineer and chief engineer, and as a marine crew member he reported to the captain. Duties included, but were not limited to, performing preventative maintenance. Plaintiff worked more than forty hours many weeks without receiving overtime pay. As a result, brought an action to recover overtime wages under the FLSA. Defendants refused to pay claiming plaintiff was an exempted seaman under the FLSA thus not entitled to overtime wages and filed a motion for summary judgment. Issue: Held: Summary judgment will be rendered if the evidence, construed in favor of the nonmoving party, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FLSA requires employers to provide compensation for each hour worked in excess of forty at a rate no less than one and one-half times an employer's regular rate. However, the FLSA exempts any employee employed as a "seaman". Furthermore, "seaman" is defined in a Department of Labor interpretive bulletin, 29 C.F.R. pt. 783, "if he performs, as master or subject to authority, direction, and control of the master aboard a vessel service which is rendered primarily as an aid in the operation in such vessel as a means of transportation, provided he performs no substantial amount of work of a different character". Furthermore, the DOL states employee's eligibility for the seaman exemption depends upon the character of the work he performs what it is called and where it is performed. Merely by occasionally performing seaman's duties does not render employee exempt under the FLSA. The DOL further states an employee's non-seaman work is "substantial", excluding a seaman exemption, if it occupies more than 20 percent of the time worked by the employee during the work week. This Court held that because plaintiff did not introduce evidence establishing that he worked more than 20 percent performing non seamans duties, then as a matter of law, defendants were entitled, as a matter of law, to summary judgment. Comment: Steve Gordon
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0alpha3
!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."
|
|||||||||
| Last Updated on Friday, 23 October 2009 16:45 |
Translate This Site