Newton v. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd.
881 F.3d 1078
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Brian Newton worked on fixed drilling platforms on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off Santa Barbara, on 14-day shifts with 12 hours on duty and 12 hours on controlled standby; he alleges unpaid compensable time (meal breaks, standby) under California law.
- Newton sued in California state court asserting multiple California Labor Code and related claims (minimum wage, overtime/doubletime, meal periods, pay stubs, timely final wages, PAGA, UCL); Parker removed to federal court.
- District court granted judgment on the pleadings for Parker, holding that under the OCSLA the FLSA is a comprehensive federal scheme and state wage-and-hour laws apply on the OCS only to fill a ‘‘significant void or gap.’’
- Newton appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether OCSLA incorporates state law as surrogate federal law when federal law exists on the subject.
- The Ninth Circuit held OCSLA adopts ‘‘applicable and not inconsistent’’ state law as federal law on the OCS without requiring a prior ‘‘void or gap’’ in federal law, and remanded for the district court to determine inconsistency questions (including for meal-period, final-pay, and pay-stub claims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCSLA allows state wage-and-hour laws to be applied on OCS platforms when federal law (FLSA) also governs | Newton: California laws can be adopted as surrogate federal law so long as they are "applicable and not inconsistent" with federal law; FLSA's savings clause permits more protective state rules | Parker: OCSLA permits state law only to fill significant voids in federal law; FLSA is a comprehensive scheme leaving no room for state law on the OCS | Held: OCSLA does not require a "gap" in federal law; state law applies as surrogate federal law if "applicable and not inconsistent" with federal law |
| Whether California minimum wage and overtime rules are inconsistent with the FLSA | Newton: California standards are more protective and preserved by FLSA savings clause; not inconsistent | Parker: Differences mean California law conflicts with the comprehensive FLSA scheme | Held: California minimum wage and overtime provisions are not inconsistent with the FLSA; dismissal vacated |
| Whether other California employment rules (meal periods, final pay, pay stub) apply on the OCS | Newton: Those state protections may be applied as surrogate federal law if not inconsistent | Parker: FLSA preempts those claims because federal regime is comprehensive | Held: District court erred by requiring a federal gap; remanded for district court to decide whether each state rule is "not inconsistent" with federal law |
| Whether plaintiff should get leave to amend/clarify onshore or coastal claims | Newton: Complaint alleges some conduct occurred in Goleta/California; requests leave to amend if necessary | Parker: (Opposed removal and moved to dismiss) | Held: Remand vacated dismissals and plaintiff entitled to opportunity to clarify or amend allegations regarding onshore/transit claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352 (1969) (OCS platforms treated as federal enclaves; state law adopted as surrogate federal law where maritime law does not apply)
- Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971) (OCSLA permits courts to apply state law to fill gaps in federal law rather than create federal common law)
- Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207 (1986) (OCSLA choice-of-law provision applies based on situs; high seas incidents governed by maritime law)
- Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (1981) (when federal law applies, courts must assess inconsistency between federal and state law under OCSLA)
- Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) (Assimilative Crimes Act two-step test: whether federal law punishes the conduct and whether federal law precludes assimilation of state law)
- Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42 (1984) (inconsistency under §1988 assessed by comparing policies and objectives of federal statute and state rule)
- Reed v. United States, 734 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2013) (applied Lewis to hold federal regulation did not preclude assimilation of a state per se drugged-driving law on an enclave)
- Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. PLT Eng’g, Inc., 895 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1990) (articulated a three-part test used by the Fifth Circuit for when state law may apply as surrogate federal law)
- Cont’l Oil Co. v. London S.S. Owners’ Mut. Ins. Ass’n, 417 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1969) (influential Fifth Circuit precedent framing ‘‘necessity to fill a significant void or gap’’ approach under OCSLA)