Michael Mcpherson v. Fishing Company Of Alaska
199 Wash. App. 154
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael McPherson signed a written "Employment At-Will Contract" with Fishing Company of Alaska in Sept. 2015 for a 90‑day period as an assistant engineer; pay was $200/day.
- The contract expressly stated employment was at will and that the company could terminate "at any time, with or without notice and with or without cause."
- Fishing Company terminated McPherson 18 days into the contract. McPherson sued for wrongful termination and lost wages.
- McPherson relied on 46 U.S.C. § 10601, which requires fishing agreements to state a "period of effectiveness," arguing that this precludes firing without cause during that period.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Fishing Company; McPherson appealed. The Court of Appeals applied federal maritime law in reviewing the contract issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 10601's "period of effectiveness" requirement eliminates the maritime at‑will presumption and bars termination without cause during the stated period | McPherson: the statute’s requirement of a period of effectiveness creates a guaranteed term and forbids termination without cause during that period | Fishing Co.: § 10601 only requires a written agreement stating a period of effectiveness; it does not alter the longstanding at‑will rule and parties may contract for at‑will termination | Court: The statute is unambiguous and does not abrogate the maritime at‑will employment rule; parties may agree to at‑will termination despite a stated period of effectiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779 (U.S. 1952) (favoring remedial interpretation in seamen statutes)
- Flores v. American Seafoods Co., 335 F.3d 904 (9th Cir.) (discussing written fishing agreements and protections for seamen)
- Berg v. Fourth Shipmor Associates, 82 F.3d 307 (9th Cir.) (period of employment did not guarantee for‑cause termination)
- Brekken v. Reader's Digest Special Products, Inc., 353 F.2d 505 (7th Cir.) (stated term was an expectation where contract also allowed earlier termination)
- Harper v. U.S. Seafoods LP, 278 F.3d 971 (9th Cir.) (courts should not rewrite maritime law based on fairness)
- In re Fitzgerald Marine & Repair, Inc., 619 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.) (maritime contract interpretation principles)