New Admiralty Case from First Circuit - Fishing Wage Agreements

New admiralty case from the First Circuit Court of Appeals on fishing wage agreements.  The opinion in the case of Borkowski v. F/V Madison Kate, can be found here.

From the Court's introduction:

The appellants in this maritime matter are three commercial fishermen who served aboard the F/V Madison Kate on a fishing voyage from Stonington, Connecticut in March 2006. Contrary to the requirements of federal maritime law, there was no written agreement memorializing the terms of appellants' employment. Upon return to port, each of the fishermen and the other crew members was paid a portion of the boat's net proceeds, consisting of the value of the trip's catch, less various expenses and the owner's share. Their payments were made pursuant to what the fishing industry is known in the fishing industry as the "lay-share system," under which the net proceeds are divided up into "shares" that are then awarded, in whole or part, to crew members depending on, among other things, their experience and performance. Appellants Wood and Borkowski each received a full share; appellant Ayres received a three-quarter share. The fishermen sued, claiming violations of federal maritime law and state wage laws. After an abbreviated bench trial, the district court awarded Ayres an additional quarter-share; Wood and Borkowski received no damage award. The fishermen claim on appeal that the district court committed legal error in limiting their damages. Such written agreements must contain the period of their effectiveness, the terms of any wage, share or other compensation arrangement, and any other agreed terms. Although we employ somewhat different reasoning than did the district court, we affirm the judgment.

At issue in this case was what damages are available for violations of the fishing wage agreement statute, 46 U.S.C. 10601.  Rather than address the crewmens' arguments regarding the availability of compensatory damages for violations of that statute, the appeals court highlighted their lack of evidence (apart from counsel's "say-so") of damage or the details of the deductions taken from the fishing vessel's gross revenue from the trip.  Such a lack of evidence was fatal to the claim.

Comments

[John Bromley]

Unfortunately, the First Circuit failed to look at the evidence presented at trial and on appeal. Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 8 was the marked deposition transcript of Marek Borkowski. In it was all the evidence the Appeals Court needed - despite the fact that the lower court had found that there were no issues of material fact and that no factual evidence was necessary to introduce at trial. Needless to say, the courts in the first circuit know how to not decide a matter. They also know how to avoid their obligations to their seamen wards. In this case the First Circuit ignored it all. Just as the silver oar was missing in the appellate courtroom during oral argument - is it being permitted to fade away nationwide? For the sake of our seamen and maritime commerce, let's all hope not.

[Mark Murakami]

Federal courts are adopting stricter pleading standards and stricter burdens of proof. See Iqbal and Twombly. Yet, they allowed punitive damages under general maritime law. This area of law is not for the faint of heart.