Opinion ID: 689218
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Griffin and Lamont Decisions

Text: 27 Carnival argues that its position finds substantial support in Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 664 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981), rev'd on other grounds, 458 U.S. 564, 102 S.Ct. 3245, 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982). In that case, the Court rejected Griffin's contention that, as a seaman, he was due a maintenance and cure remedy that included bonus and overtime pay. However, Griffin would have received bonus pay only upon completion of his term of employment, and he had forfeited any claim to such pay when, after recovering from his injury, he accepted employment elsewhere instead of returning to his ship. Id. at 39-40. By contrast, both parties in this case anticipated Flores would receive substantial tips each week he labored, and Flores was unable to return to his ships before his contracts expired. 28 The Griffin Court also denied overtime pay for the short period of time Griffin had worked on the ship, because the actual amount of overtime was uncertain, and hence any inclusion of such would have been purely speculative. Id. at 40 (citing Keefe v. American Pac. S.S. Co., 110 F.Supp. 853, 856 (S.D.Cal.1953) (denying overtime to seaman because [a]ctual earning of overtime was an event which might or might not occur. It depended upon many contingencies.)). Again, the present case is different. Flores worked long enough that the actual amount of tip compensation he would have received had he been able to continue working can be determined without undue speculation. 29 The decision in Lamont v. United States, 613 F.Supp. 588 (S.D.N.Y.1985), is closer to the case at hand. In Lamont, a seaman whose overtime earnings had amounted to ninety-one percent of his base wages was held to be entitled to include the amount of that overtime pay in the wage component of his maintenance and cure remedy. Looking at the custom and practice on the seaman's ship of paying overtime in amounts nearly equal to the amount received as base wages, the Lamont court noted:[T]he payment of unearned wages to an ill or injured seaman includes the full amount reasonably expected by the parties to be paid during the voyage .... The expectation of overtime amounting to almost 100 percent of the base rate has led the parties to the major collective bargaining contracts covering American seamen to provide that generally sailors will be aboard ship only six months out of each year. This [was] done because it is the common expectation of the parties that the seaman will be able to earn the annual base income when overtime is included in the six months pay. 30 Lamont, 613 F.Supp. at 593. The situation involving Flores's tip income presents an even more compelling case for inclusion than did the seaman's overtime claim in Lamont. The custom and practice and the expectation of the parties here was that the tip income Flores would receive would be as much as 2200% of his monthly salary.