 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoddevik v. Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corp.2/1/1999
Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corp. (Arctic) appeals from a Judgement entered on a jury verdict finding it liable to a crew member of a fishing vessel under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. app. sec.688. Danelle Hoddevik cross-appeals the summary Judgement dismissal of her RCW 49.60 claim for discrimination. We hold that the trial court improperly instructed the jury as to the elements of a claim under the Jones Act for negligent infliction of emotional distress. We also hold that Hoddevik's discrimination claim should not have been dismissed as preempted by federal maritime law. We thus reverse the jury's verdict under the Jones Act as well as the trial court's summary Judgement dismissal of Hoddevik's RCW 49.60 claim.
I.
Hoddevik worked as a fish cutter on Arctic's factory trawler, the Ocean Enterprise (Enterprise). She claims that her male co-workers spoke to her, and about her, in a sexually explicit manner, and that she was propositioned to perform sexual acts. Hoddevik also claims that a non-English speaking Bulgarian immigrant, Doykov, was taught sexually offensive language and told to repeat it to her, and that another Bulgarian, Mankov, spoke better English and facilitated this behavior.
Hoddevik complains of several other improper incidents on the Enterprise. For example, first mate Street pulled off a male crew member's towel when the crew member was walking to his cabin from a shower. Hoddevik saw this incident. Hoddevik alleges that Doykov exposed himself to her in the ship's laundry room. She also alleges that after the laundry room incident, Mankov attempted to rape her in his cabin.
In July 1992, Hoddevik left the Enterprise due to unrelated physical injuries that occurred during her period of employment. She subsequently filed this case, alleging unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, negligence under the Jones Act, and state law claims, including a claim under RCW 49.60, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Upon Arctic's motion for summary Judgement, the trial court dismissed Hoddevik's state law claims as preempted by federal maritime law. Hoddevik appeals dismissal of her RCW 49.60 claim. At trial, the jury did not find Arctic liable for unseaworthiness or maintenance and cure, but did find Arctic liable under the Jones Act. Arctic appeals the Jones Act verdict.
II.
Federal judicial power "extend{s} . . . to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction." Federal jurisdiction is exclusive over any in rem maritime cause of action. In fact, federal jurisdiction is exclusive in all civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, except for those under a federal statute that allows for "saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." Under this statute, a plaintiff may file an in personam maritime claim in state court where Congress has authorized such suits, or where such suits were known at common law and Congress has not conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts.
For cases that can be brought in state court under the "saving to suitors" clause, a state court may "'adopt such remedies, and . . . attach to them such incidents, as it sees fit' so long as it does not attempt to make changes in the 'substantive maritime law.'" State courts must follow substantive maritime law in such cases. Moreover, a state court may not provide a remedy which "works material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law or interferes with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations."
The Jones Act provides in relevant part: Recovery for injury to or death of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|