Kyle Halle v. Galliano Marine Service, LLC
855 F.3d 290
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kyle Halle worked as an ROV Technician/Supervisor for C‑Innovation aboard an ROV Support Vessel from 2009–2015 and sued under the FLSA for unpaid overtime.
- ROVs are tethered, remotely operated vehicles used for underwater industrial tasks; ROV control consoles were inside a container on the support vessel.
- Halle testified he reported to C‑Innovation’s land‑based operations staff, did not report to or take navigational orders from the vessel’s captain, and performed only ROV maintenance and operation (not vessel maintenance or navigation).
- Defendants argued Halle was a “seaman” exempt from FLSA overtime because his work aided the vessel and the ROVs are effectively part of the vessel.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding Halle a seaman; the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding material factual disputes and legal error as to the seaman exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Halle is a “seaman” under the FLSA | Halle was not a seaman because his duties were industrial (ROV work) and he was not under the vessel’s command | Halle is a seaman because his ROV work is attached to and aids the support vessel | Reversed summary judgment; disputed facts and legal errors preclude deciding as a matter of law |
| Prong 1: Subject to master’s authority aboard a vessel | Halle asserts he reported to land‑based supervisors, not the vessel captain | Defendants assert Halle answered to the captain (contradictory affidavit) | Material factual dispute exists; summary judgment improper |
| Prong 2: Service primarily aids vessel as means of transportation | Halle’s primary duties were industrial ROV tasks, not navigation or vessel operation | Defendants contend ROV operation/maintenance aids the vessel because ROVs are attached to the vessel | Court found record insufficient to show Halle’s duties primarily aided vessel transportation; many duties are non‑seaman work |
| Substantial non‑seaman work (20% rule) | Halle performed substantial industrial work (ROV operation/maintenance) exceeding 20% | Defendants argue navigation‑related tasks (e.g., transmitting coordinates) support seaman status | Court held no clear showing that seaman tasks occupied the requisite majority; 20% rule and factual disputes defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffin v. Blessey Marine Servs., Inc., 771 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2014) (articulates the two‑prong FLSA seaman test and discusses the 20% rule)
- Dole v. Petroleum Treaters, Inc., 876 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1989) (regulations on seaman status entitled to great weight; distinction between FLSA and Jones Act definitions)
- Owens v. SeaRiver Mar., Inc., 272 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2001) (distinguishes industrial cargo work from seaman duties focused on safe navigation)
- Walling v. W. D. Haden Co., 153 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1946) (dredgemen performed primarily industrial work despite vessel location)
- McKie v. Diamond Marine Co., 104 F. Supp. 275 (S.D. Tex. 1952) (industrial vessel‑based work characterized as incidental for seaman analysis)
- Marshall v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., 458 F. Supp. 709 (D. Mass. 1978) (scientific crew aboard specialized vessels were not seamen because duties did not assist vessel maintenance/navigation)
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (explains Jones Act seaman concept and why Jones Act and FLSA definitions differ)