Padilla v. Maersk Lind, Limited
721 F.3d 77
2d Cir.2013Background
- John Padilla, a Maersk chief cook, was discharged as unfit for duty during a voyage due to injury; Maersk paid base-rate unearned wages and maintenance-and-cure but not overtime.
- Padilla sued on behalf of a class of Maersk seafarers discharged for illness/injury seeking overtime they would have earned through the end of their voyages.
- District court granted Padilla summary judgment, concluding general maritime law permits recovery of unearned wages that include routinely expected overtime when not speculative.
- A class was certified; the district court awarded over $800,000 to the class for unpaid overtime.
- Maersk appealed, arguing overtime is not part of unearned wages under maritime law and that certain officers governed by a different CBA should be removed from the class; the district court denied a late Rule 59(e) motion to amend.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: (1) unearned wages under general maritime law include routinely expected overtime that would have been earned but for the injury, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maersk’s belated motion to amend the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unearned wages under general maritime law include overtime routinely expected but not yet earned at time of discharge | Padilla: yes — seamen must be placed in same position they would have been in but for injury; routine, substantial overtime is part of those wages | Maersk: no — overtime is not encompassed by "unearned wages" under maritime law and, where governed, CBAs limit recovery | Held: Yes — routinely expected, non‑speculative overtime that a seaman would have earned is recoverable as unearned wages under general maritime law |
| Whether the CBA at issue limits unearned wages to exclude overtime | Padilla: CBA does not expressly change maritime remedy; absent explicit terms, general maritime law controls | Maersk: CBA modifies computation of remedies to exclude overtime | Held: CBA did not expressly limit unearned wages to exclude overtime; general maritime law governs the remedy |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying Maersk’s late motion to amend judgment to exclude officers governed by a different CBA | Padilla: denial appropriate — Maersk’s motion was untimely and lacked excusable neglect | Maersk: class actions require flexible treatment of subclasses; amendment could have been made efficiently | Held: No abuse of discretion — motion was untimely, Maersk failed to show excusable neglect under Pioneer factors |
| Whether including overtime conflicts with remedies under the Jones Act (raised for first time on appeal) | Padilla: (not argued below) | Maersk: overtime recovery should be limited by Jones Act conditions | Held: Issue not raised below; Second Circuit declined to consider it on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ammar v. United States, 342 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2003) (maintenance/cure and CBA interaction under maritime law)
- Rodriguez Alvarez v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc., 898 F.2d 312 (2d Cir. 1990) (seaman entitled to lost wages as part of maritime remedy)
- The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1903) (historic source recognizing unearned wages for seamen)
- Lipscomb v. Foss Mar. Co., 83 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1996) (CBA must expressly modify maritime remedy to displace general law)
- Flores v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 47 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 1995) (tips included in unearned wages under maritime law)
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 664 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1981) (denial of overtime when amount speculative)
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1962) (maintenance-and-cure claims construed broadly in favor of seamen)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (standards for "excusable neglect" in procedural timing)
- Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2003) (application of Pioneer factors in maritime class litigation)