46 U.S.C. § 2114

Protection of seamen against discrimination

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 46 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) A person may not discharge or in any manner discriminate against a seaman because—(A) the seaman in good faith has reported or is about to report to the Coast Guard or other appropriate Federal agency or department that the seaman believes that a violation of a maritime safety law or regulation prescribed under that law or regulation has occurred;(B) the seaman in good faith has reported or is about to report to the vessel owner, Coast Guard or other appropriate Federal agency or department sexual harassment or sexual assault against the seaman or knowledge of sexual harassment or sexual assault against another seaman;(C) the seaman has refused to perform duties ordered by the seaman’s employer because the seaman has a reasonable apprehension or expectation that performing such duties would result in serious injury to the seaman, other seamen, or the public;(D) the seaman testified in a proceeding brought to enforce a maritime safety law or regulation prescribed under that law;(E) the seaman notified, or attempted to notify, the vessel owner or the Secretary of a work-related personal injury or work-related illness of a seaman;(F) the seaman cooperated with a safety investigation by the Secretary or the National Transportation Safety Board;(G) the seaman furnished information to the Secretary, the National Transportation Safety Board, or any other public official as to the facts relating to any marine casualty resulting in injury or death to an individual or damage to property occurring in connection with vessel transportation; or(H) the seaman accurately reported hours of duty under this part.(2) The circumstances causing a seaman’s apprehension of serious injury under paragraph (1)(C) must be of such a nature that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would conclude that there is a real danger of an injury or serious impairment of health resulting from the performance of duties as ordered by the seaman’s employer.(3) To qualify for protection against the seaman’s employer under paragraph (1)(C), the employee must have sought from the employer, and been unable to obtain, correction of the unsafe condition.(b) A seaman alleging discharge or discrimination in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or another person at the seaman’s request, may file a complaint with respect to such allegation in the same manner as a complaint may be filed under subsection (b) of section 31105 of title 49. Such complaint shall be subject to the procedures, requirements, and rights described in that section, including with respect to the right to file an objection, the right of a person to file for a petition for review under subsection (c) of that section, and the requirement to bring a civil action under subsection (d) of that section.(Added Pub. L. 98–557, § 13(a), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2863; amended Pub. L. 107–295, title IV, § 428, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2127; Pub. L. 111–281, title VI, § 611(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2969; Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXVI, § 11605, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4148.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Subsec. (a)(1)(B) to (H). Pub. L. 117–263, § 11605(1), added subpar. (B) and redesignated former subpars. (B) to (G) as (C) to (H), respectively.

Subsec. (a)(2), (3). Pub. L. 117–263, § 11605(2), substituted “paragraph (1)(C)” for “paragraph (1)(B)”.

2010—Subsec. (a)(1)(C) to (G). Pub. L. 111–281, § 611(a)(1)–(3), added subpars. (C) to (G).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–281, § 611(a)(4), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows: “A seaman discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of this section may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States. In that action, the court may order any appropriate relief, including—

“(1) restraining violations of this section;

“(2) reinstatement to the seaman’s former position with back pay;

“(3) an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff not exceeding $1,000; and

“(4) an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing employer not exceeding $1,000 if the court finds that a complaint filed under this section is frivolous or has been brought in bad faith.”

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–295, § 428(a), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “An owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, or individual in charge of a vessel may not discharge or in any manner discriminate against a seaman because the seaman in good faith has reported or is about to report to the Coast Guard that the seaman believes that a violation of this subtitle, or a regulation issued under this subtitle, has occurred.”

Subsec. (b)(3), (4). Pub. L. 107–295, § 428(b), added pars. (3) and (4).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSavings Provision

Pub. L. 111–281, title VI, § 611(b), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2970, provided that: “This section [amending this section] shall not affect the application of section 2114(b) of title 46, United States Code, as in effect before the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 15, 2010], to an action filed under that section before that date.”

Transfer of Functions

For transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard, including the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto, to the Department of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 468(b), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Zuccolo v. Hannah Marine Corp., 900 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Zuccolo v. Hannah Marine Corp., 900 N.E.2d 353 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 9× “Hannah Marine disagrees, maintaining that the plaintiffs claim brought pursuant to the Whistleblower Act is preempted by the Seaman’s Protection Act ( 46 U.S.C.A. §2114 (West Supp. 2004)). Additionally, Hannah Marine asserts that the plaintiffs Illinois common-law retaliatory…”

Gaffney, Michael P. v. Riverboat Serv IN, 451 F.3d 424 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 19× “The plaintiffs, who are licensed merchant marine officers, 1 brought this whis-tleblower action under 46 U.S.C. § 2114 against Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, Showboat, Inc.”

Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “”); 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (b) (Protection of Seaman against Discrimination) (“A seaman discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of [ 46 U.”

Hubert Garrie v. James L. Gray, Inc., & Texaco Inc., 912 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “SMITH, Circuit Judge: We are asked to create a new exception to the employment at will doctrine by expanding 46 U.S.C. § 2114 , which forbids retaliation against “whistleblower” seamen who report or are about to report safety violations to the Coast Guard, in order to protect…”

Seymore v. Lake Tahoe Cruises, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 1029 (E.D. Cal. 1995). · cites it 5× “Seymore brings this action for wrongful termination under 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (a), 2 federal maritime law, and state law.”

Robinson v. Alter Barge Line, Inc., 513 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “1983), held that there is no tort of retaliatory discharge under admiralty law, Congress passed the Seaman’s Protection Act, 46 U.S.C. § 2114 . So far as bears on this case, the Act forbids discharging or otherwise discriminating against a seaman because he “in good faith has…”

Larry Gwin v. Am. River Transp. Co., 482 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “He and five other former Artco employees filed suit in federal district court arguing that Artco fired them because they refused to perform duties they considered unsafe, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1)(B). After a 12-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of…”

Bajalo v. Nw. Univ., 860 N.E.2d 556 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “§6971 (Solid Waste Disposal Act); 46 U.S.C. §2114 (creating private cause of action for seamen who suffer retaliation for reporting to the Coast Guard violations of federal shipping and maritime laws).”

Haag v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 555 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Haag initiated a whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which administers complaints under the Seaman's Protection Act, 46 U.S.C. § 2114 . OSHA dismissed the complaint because it did not have "reasonable cause to believe" a violation of…”

Harley Marine Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 677 F. App'x 538 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “(Harley) seeks review of the Secretary of Labor’s final order that Harley terminated the employment of Captain Joseph Dady in violation of the Seaman’s Protection Act (SPA), 46 U.S.C. § 2114 . After thorough review and with the benefit of oral argument, the Secretary’s…”

Alonso v. McAllister Towing of Charleston, Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 645 (D.S.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongly terminated him, and raises three grounds for relief: (1) wrongful discharge in violation of the Seaman’s Protection Act ( 46 U.S.C. § 2114 ); (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional…”

Capalbo v. Kris-Way Truck Leasing, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 397 (D. Me. 2011). “]” 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (a)(1)(A). Similarly, the Michigan Whistle-Blowers’ Protection Act applies, in relevant part, in circumstances in which an employee or a person acting on his or her behalf “reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a *417 suspected…”

Show all 26 citing cases →

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.