Johnson v. Canal Barge Co.
181 F. Supp. 3d 413
S.D. Tex.2016Background
- Johnson, a vessel-based deckhand/tankerman employed by Canal Barge, sued under the FLSA alleging unpaid overtime for work loading, unloading, and caring for hazardous liquid cargo.
- Johnson worked 14-day hitches aboard towboats (tug pushing two barges), lived on board, stood six-hour watches, and performed deckhand and tankerman duties.
- Canal Barge moved for summary judgment arguing Johnson was a "seaman" and exempt from FLSA overtime; the district court initially denied, the case was stayed pending Coffin, then reopened.
- After the Fifth Circuit decided Coffin (holding vessel-based tankermen’s loading/unloading constituted seaman work), Canal Barge renewed its summary-judgment motion.
- The undisputed record showed Johnson (like Coffin) was a member of the vessel crew, subject to the captain’s control, performed traditional deckhand tasks, and performed loading/unloading in ways that affected vessel safety and operability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson is a "seaman" exempt from FLSA overtime | Johnson: his primary duty was supervising cargo safety/pollution prevention, not aiding vessel operation | Canal Barge: Johnson performed crew/deckhand and tankerman tasks integral to vessel operation and safety | Court: Johnson is a seaman as a matter of law; exemption applies |
| Whether Coffin controls or factual differences preclude summary judgment | Johnson: factual distinctions (focus on pollution prevention) create genuine issues of material fact | Canal Barge: factual record here mirrors Coffin (vessel-based, crew member, control by master) | Court: Coffin controls; no genuine dispute—summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether loading/unloading here was work "of a different character" (non-seaman) | Johnson: loading/unloading primarily served cargo/dock/environmental protection, not transportation | Canal Barge: loading/unloading affected vessel seaworthiness, trim, mooring and was directed by vessel master | Court: loading/unloading implicated vessel operation; not work of a different character |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffin v. Blessey Marine Servs., Inc., 771 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2014) (vessel-based tankermen’s loading/unloading were seaman work for FLSA exemption)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine-issue standards for summary judgment)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (nonmovant cannot rely on conclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment)