Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton
587 U.S. 601
SCOTUS2019Background
- Newton worked 14‑day rotations on Parker Drilling platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), with 12 hours on duty and 12 hours on unpaid standby during which he could not leave the platform.
- Newton sued in California state court asserting California wage‑and‑hour claims (minimum wage and overtime for standby time); Parker removed to federal court.
- Parties agreed the OCSLA governs the platforms: OCSLA makes all law on the OCS federal and adopts adjacent State law as federal law "to the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent."
- District Court held the FLSA is a comprehensive federal scheme leaving no gap, so California law could not be adopted; it entered judgment for Parker on the pleadings.
- Ninth Circuit reversed, holding a state law is "applicable" if it pertains to the subject and is "not inconsistent" unless it is preempted under ordinary principles.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the proper interpretation of "applicable and not inconsistent," and whether California wage laws apply on the OCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Newton) | Defendant's Argument (Parker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to interpret "applicable" under §1333(a)(2)(A) | Means state law that pertains to subject matter should apply | State law applies only to fill gaps in federal law | Court: "applicable" means state law is adopted only where federal law does not address the issue |
| How to interpret "not inconsistent" under §1333(a)(2)(A) | Means state law is inconsistent only if it is incompatible with federal law (ordinary preemption) | State law may be inconsistent if it would create a different federal standard even if both could be satisfied | Court: "not inconsistent" is read with context—state law cannot be adopted where federal law already addresses the issue |
| Whether FLSA permits adoption of California minimum wage/overtime on the OCS | FLSA’s saving clause allows more protective state laws; thus California law should apply | Because FLSA governs wages on the OCS, there is no federal gap to be filled by state law | Court: FLSA addresses minimum wage and overtime on the OCS, so California wage rules are not adopted as federal law and do not apply on the OCS |
| Proper role of OCSLA choice‑of‑law (gap‑filling vs ordinary preemption) | OCSLA should operate like adjacent State choice‑of‑law; state law applies unless conflicting | OCSLA adopts state law only to fill federal gaps; federal law is exclusive on OCS | Court: OCSLA functions as a federal‑enclave/ gap‑filling rule: state law adopted only where federal law leaves a gap |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352 (1969) (OCSLA makes federal law exclusive on the OCS and adopts state law to fill federal gaps)
- Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971) (OCSLA borrows state law to fill substantial gaps in federal law)
- Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (1981) (reiterates that OCSLA incorporates state law only to fill gaps and that all OCS law is federal)
- James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94 (1940) (federal enclave doctrine: preexisting state law can be adopted as surrogate federal law but going forward state law presumptively does not apply)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, 488 U.S. 19 (1988) (discusses OCS jurisdictional background and statutory design)