29 C.F.R. § 783.32

“Seaman” includes crew members

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The term “seaman” includes members of the crew such as sailors, engineers, radio operators, firemen, pursers, surgeons, cooks, and stewards if, as is the usual case, their service is of the type described in § 783.31. In some cases it may not be of that type, in which event the special provisions relating to seamen will not be applicable (Sternberg Dredging Co. v. Walling, 158 F. 2d 678; Cuascut v. Standard Dredging Co., 94 F. Supp. 197; Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 199 F. 2d 455). However, an employee employed as a seaman does not lose his status as such simply because, as an incident to such employment, he performs some work not connected with operation of the vessel as a means of transportation, such as assisting in the loading or unloading of freight at the beginning or end of a voyage, if the amount of such work is not substantial.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Keith Coffin v. Blessey Marine Servs., In, 771 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Keith Coffin v. Blessey Marine Servs., In, 771 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “31 outlines these criteria as follows: [A]n employee -will ordinarily be regarded as employed as a seaman if he performs, as master or subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master aboard a vessel, service which is rendered primarily as an aid in the operation…”

Adams v. All Coast, 15 F.4th 365 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 783.32 . Nor does the regulation suggest anything unique about the plaintiffs’ loading and unloading that would lead us to a different conclusion.”

Godard v. Alabama Pilot, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Ala. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 783.32 ; Martin v. Bedell, 955 F.”

Lynn Martin, Sec'y of Labor v. Leslie N. Bedell & Blue Water Marine, Catering, Inc., 955 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1992). “We found that shell miners employed on a seagoing vessel "are employed more in industry than in shipwork".”

Mcmahan v. Adept Process Servs., Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (E.D. Va. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. § 783.32 . The DOL further advises: Whether an employee is “employed as a seaman”, within the meaning of the Act, depends upon the character of the work he actually performs and not on what it is called or the place where it is performed.”

McLaughlin v. Boston Harbor Cruise Lines, Inc., 419 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2005). “” See 29 C.F.R. §§ 783.32 , 783.33, 783.34. Boston Harbor believes that the first group falls under the exemption, while the second and third do not.”

Selby v. Yacht Starship, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (M.D. Fla. 2008). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 783.32 ; Martin v. Bedell, 955 F.”

Adams v. All Coast L L C (W.D. La. 2019). · cites it 2× “25 29 C.F.R. § 783.32 ; Coffin v. Blessey Marine Servs.”

Martin v. Bedell (5th Cir. 1992). “23 29 C.F.R. § 783.32 (1990) (emphasis added).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.