Doe v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
657 F.3d 1204
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Doe, a seaman employed by Princess Cruise Lines, alleges rape by crew members aboard M/S STAR PRINCESS after a late-night party in cabin 3342; she reports the assault to ship personnel who interrogate her and delay medical care; Doe is ultimately treated ashore in Seattle weeks later and is denied timely maintenance and cure and medical treatments on board.
- Princess sought to compel arbitration under a crew agreement that includes an arbitration clause in the Principal Terms and Conditions of Employment, incorporating the Acceptance of Employment Terms and Conditions.
- The district court denied arbitration as to all ten counts; it relied on Jones v. Halliburton, which held some rape-related claims fell outside a broad employment-related arbitration clause.
- The court applied de novo review to interpret the arbitration clause and determine whether the alleged facts fall within its scope, referencing related cases on scope of arbitration.
- The Eleventh Circuit ultimately held that Counts I–V (the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, Seaman’s Wage Act) fall within the arbitration clause, while Counts VI–X (false imprisonment, IIED, spoliation, invasion of privacy, fraudulent misrepresentation) do not, and remanded accordingly.
- The opinion discusses gateway determinations, the requirement that arbitration be based on mutual agreement, and the limits of broad contract language in the arbitration clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of arbitration clause | Doe argues Counts I–V arise from seaman status and are within the clause. | Princess contends all claims relate to employment and services, thus within scope. | Counts I–V within arbitration scope; Counts VI–X not within scope. |
| Gateway issue for arb. determination | N/A | Gateway question should be resolved by court, not arbitrator. | Court properly decided arbitrability; invited error doctrine inapplicable. |
| Meaning of 'arising out of', 'related to', 'connected with' | N/A | These terms should be read broadly to cover all employment-related disputes. | Arbitration clause limited by its language; not all-embracing—terms have direct relationship requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consolidated Invs., 553 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of arbitration clause scope; whether facts fall within clause)
- Jones v. Halliburton, 583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (outside scope where rape-related claims not within employment-related clause)
- Telecom Italia, SpA v. Wholesale Telecom Corp., 248 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir. 2001) (defines 'arising out of' as relation to contractual duties; foreseeability standard)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Talk, 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (liberal policy favoring arbitration; but cannot override contract language)