135 F. Supp. 3d 1089
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Valerie Russo, a California resident, worked intermittently as chief cook aboard the U.S.-flagged vessel APL Korea on 11 international voyages between 2004–2012; she sailed mostly outside California.
- Russo and Captain James Londagin had a prior consensual relationship that resumed aboard the vessel in December 2012; Russo ended the relationship while the ship was in international waters.
- After the breakup, Russo alleges Londagin engaged in harassing conduct (one alleged buttock slap, repeated requests for “make-up sex,” banging on her door, lingering outside her stateroom, criticizing work, and denying overtime); she did not report these incidents contemporaneously.
- Londagin terminated Russo aboard the vessel on December 21, 2012; she was removed at the next port (Yokohama). Russo sued in California state court asserting FEHA claims (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination), battery, Jones Act negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and punitive damages; defendants removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing California employment law does not apply extraterritorially and several claims fail as a matter of law; the court resolved several claims on extraterritoriality and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEHA and state constitutional employment protections apply extraterritorially to conduct occurring on the high seas | Russo urged FEHA should apply because she is a California resident, signed aboard in Oakland, and vessel home port is Oakland | FEHA does not apply extraterritorially where the situs of employment and the material elements of the claims occurred outside California | Court: FEHA and state constitutional discrimination claim barred — extraterritoriality presumption not overcome; summary judgment for defendants on claims 1–4 (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination) |
| Whether unseaworthiness claim survives based on alleged captain misconduct | Russo argued captain’s conduct made vessel unseaworthy by temperament/fitness for duty | Defendants argued isolated nonviolent conduct (single buttock slap, verbal solicitations) does not rise to "savage and vicious" standard required for unseaworthiness assault-based claims | Court: Unseaworthiness claim dismissed — one slap and related conduct insufficient as a matter of law |
| Whether Russo states a Jones Act NIED claim (zone-of-danger / physical-impact) | Russo contends she feared for her safety aboard the ship (kept a chair behind her door) and experienced emotional harm | Defendants contend no physical injury or sufficient risk-of-physical-harm to satisfy Gottshall/Buckley standards | Court: NIED survives summary judgment — disputed fact whether Russo was in the zone of danger precludes summary judgment |
| Availability of punitive damages | Russo seeks punitive damages | Defendants argued punitive damages not recoverable on the surviving maritime claims (Jones Act NIED, maintenance and cure) | Court: Punitive damages dismissed — not available for Russo’s remaining claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and procedure)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment—inferences and genuine dispute standard)
- North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury, 174 Cal. 1 (presumption against extraterritoriality of state statutes)
- Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1036 (California test whether conduct giving rise to liability occurred in California)
- Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U.S. 336 (unseaworthiness and when crew temperament renders vessel perilous)
- The Silvia, 171 U.S. 462 (general warranty of seaworthiness)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (zone-of-danger / NIED standard in federal maritime law)
- Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424 (physical-impact/zone-of-danger refinement)
- Stacy v. Rederiet Otto Danielsen, A/S, 609 F.3d 1033 (Ninth Circuit: showing fear in maritime context can support zone-of-danger theory)
- McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., 768 F.3d 382 (punitive damages not available on certain maritime claims)