Court Opinion

ID: 9426448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:59.555978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.919339
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring in the judgment.
Although I concur in the judgment of the Court, I do not think it necessary to determine in this case whether a “job situs” test is appropriate or required generally. The only issue before the Court is whether federal or state law should apply to the employment contracts of maritime workers whose job situs is the high seas and who thereby enjoy a special status. As noted by Judge Ainsworth, writing for the six dissenting members of the Court of Appeals:
“[Sjeamen have traditionally maintained an exceptional status in regard to the regulation and control of their employment, and . . . section 14 (b) cannot reasonably be construed to remove them from that category. Seamen, particularly the type of blue-water seamen involved here, as wards of admiralty have been accorded a special status and protection under federal maritime law unknown to state law in the domain of the master-servant relationship. Unlike the land-based worker, the seaman’s employ*422ment and all of the rights and restrictions flowing therefrom, are determined by federal statutory and admiralty law, not state law. . . .
. . The consistent and traditional control by federal law of every phase of maritime employment relationships and contracts refutes the proposition that [respondent’s] contacts with Texas justify injecting state law into federal maritime affairs.” 504 F. 2d 272, 284-286 (CA5 1974) (footnotes omitted).
I join in reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals, as I do not believe § 14 (b) can be construed reasonably to apply to these seamen.