Opinion ID: 2827259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Johnson’s Additional Arguments

Text: Johnson raises three additional arguments to support his position that GSF employed the rig hands. First, he notes that in two other lawsuits, GSF admitted to being an employer of other rig hands in 2008. Although Johnson 13 Case: 14-30422 Document: 00513153902 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 No. 14-30422 claims that one of these employees worked on the HIGH ISLAND VII, he points to no record evidence to support that claim. Evidence that GSF employed some rig hands in 2008 does not raise an inference that GSF employed the rig hands who were working on the HIGH ISLAND VII on the night of November 8, 2010. Second, Johnson suggests that there is insufficient record support for GSF’s claim that TSSNL was the rig hands’ employer. However, because Johnson bears the burden at trial of demonstrating an employment relationship between GSF and the rig hands, GSF carries its burden at the summary judgment stage by pointing to an absence of evidence that it employed the rig hands. See Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 199 F.3d at 798. GSF need not prove that another entity employed the rig hands. Finally, Johnson marshals policy arguments. He claims that a finding that TSSNL, and not GSF, employed the rig hands would lead to “a situation in which overseas rig hands will now fluctuate wildly in and out of employment relationships based merely upon where the rig is operating.” However, on this record, the situation that Johnson fears might actually result from a finding that GSF employed the rig hands. McKenzie testified that while GSF distributes pay to Americans working on rigs in non-U.S. waters, Transocean Deep Water, Inc. distributes pay to Americans working on rigs in U.S. waters. Therefore, allowing the identity of the rig hands’ employer to hinge on the W-2 form could cause employment relationships to change each time a rig moved between U.S. and non-U.S. waters. 3 3 At the same time, we acknowledge concern that companies conceivably could delegate through contract each obligation reflecting an employment relationship, such that no one company exercises sufficient control over a tortfeasor to support vicarious liability. 14 Case: 14-30422 Document: 00513153902 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/13/2015 No. 14-30422