Alexander v. Express Energy Services Operating, L.P., 784 F.3d 1032

Michael Alexander was a lead hand/operator in Express Energy’s plug-and-abandonment (P&A) crew that plugs wells on fixed offshore platforms.
On August 11, 2011 he was injured on an Apache-owned fixed platform while a liftboat (L/B RAM X) was positioned adjacent to the platform and connected by a catwalk; the liftboat’s crane (operated by its crew) dropped equipment that struck Alexander’s foot.
Alexander sued under the Jones Act, asserting seaman status against Express; Express moved for summary judgment arguing Alexander was a platform-based (land-based) worker and not a seaman.
Controlling law (Chandris test): (1) worker must do the ship’s work (contribute to vessel function or mission), and (2) must have a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation in duration and nature (Fifth Circuit rule of thumb: ordinarily ~30% of work time aboard vessel).
Alexander argued he contributed to the liftboat’s function and relied on Roberts to count all time on jobs that used an adjacent vessel toward the 30% temporal requirement, but produced no evidence that he personally spent 30% of his time actually working on a vessel.
The district court granted summary judgment for Express (finding failure on the contribution prong and noting temporal problems); the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the temporal-connection ground: Alexander failed to show he actually worked on a vessel at least 30% of the time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alexander’s duties contributed to the function or mission of a vessel (Chandris prong 1)	His P&A duties supported operations that used an adjacent liftboat, so he "did the ship’s work" for the vessel	His work was performed on fixed platforms; duties related to the platform not the vessel	Court affirmed district court’s judgment on other grounds but noted Alexander did not meet the temporal prong; district court had found duties like Hufnagel (platform-based) did not contribute to vessel function
Whether Alexander had the required substantial temporal connection to a vessel in navigation (Chandris prong 2)	Roberts permits counting entire jobs that used an adjacent vessel toward the 30% requirement even if plaintiff worked mostly on the platform	Alexander did not present evidence he actually spent ≥30% of his work time aboard a vessel; many jobs used no adjacent vessel	Held: Alexander failed to show he actually worked on a vessel at least ~30% of the time; Roberts cannot override Chandris; summary judgment for Express affirmed

Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (two-prong seaman test: ship’s work and substantial temporal/nature connection)
McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) (broad category of doing the ship’s work informs seaman inquiry)
Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir. 1986) (worker must be permanently assigned to vessel or perform a substantial portion of work aboard it)
Hufnagel v. Omega Serv. Indus., Inc., 182 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 1999) (platform-based duties do not constitute contribution to vessel function)
Roberts v. Cardinal Servs., Inc., 266 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2001) (addressed temporal counting for adjacent-vessel jobs; Court here rejects broad application to override Chandris)
Nunez v. B&B Dredging, Inc., 288 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting temporal requirement; worker must spend substantial part of work time aboard vessel)