Rogers v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line

• Decision Date: 06 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. 07-55071.,07-55071.
• Parties: Michael ROGERS; Hulya Kar, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated seafarers and as private attorney general, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE; M/V Monarch of the Seas, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

547 F.3d 1148

Michael ROGERS; Hulya Kar, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated seafarers and as private attorney general, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE; M/V Monarch of the Seas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-55071.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2008.

Filed November 6, 2008.

Joseph S. Farzam, Law Offices of Joseph F. Farzam & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellants.

Sanford L. Bohrer; Scott D. Ponce, Holland & Knight, Miami, FL; Paul C. Workman, Holland & Knight, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellee.

Jeffrey Robert White, Washington, D.C., David W. Brill, Downs Brill Whitehead,

Pembroke Pines, FL, for amicus curiae American Association for Justice.

Paul Giannini, Law Office of Paul Giannini, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus curiae Seafarer Benefit Foundation.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-04574-SVW.

Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, W. FLETCHER, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

Michael Rogers and Hulya Kar appeal the district court's order granting their employer's motion to compel arbitration. They argue that federal statutes exempt their employment contracts from the scope of Title 9 of the United States Code. We conclude that their employment contracts are "considered as commercial" under Title 9. Therefore, we hold that the arbitration provisions contained in their employment contracts are enforceable, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. Background

Michael Rogers, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, and Hulya Kar, a citizen of Turkey, worked on cruise ships operated by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean").¹ Rogers worked as a "cabin boy" and "stateroom attendant," and Kar worked as an assistant waiter.

Counsel for Rogers and Kar have stipulated that both employees signed a written employment agreement with Royal Caribbean. Kar's employment agreement provided that Royal Caribbean would pay her $50 in "[m]onthly basic pay," and that she was entitled to $890 in "[m]onthly [g]uaranteed [p]ay including [g]uaranteed [o]vertime." According to the employment agreement, "the monthly guaranteed pay is inclusive of all gratuities provided by passengers."

Kar's employment agreement expressly stated: "I ... understand and agree that the Collective Bargaining Agreement between [Royal Caribbean] and the [Norwegian Seafarers'] Union is incorporated into and made part of this Employment Agreement and that I and the Company are bound by its terms and conditions." In the employment agreement, Kar acknowledged having received a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Article 26 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Royal Caribbean and the Norwegian Seafarers' Union ("the Union") describes a "Grievance and Dispute Resolution Procedure." Subsection (d) states that if a grievance or other dispute "relating to or in any way connected with the seafarer's service for" Royal Caribbean is "not resolved by the Union, the Owners/Company, and/or the Seafarer," then the dispute

shall be referred to and resolved exclusively by binding arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Conventions on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York 1958), 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. ("The Convention") .... The arbitration referred to in this Article is exclusive and mandatory. Claims and lawsuits may not be brought by any Seafarer or party hereto, except to enforce arbitration or a decision of the arbitrator.

On July 21, 2006, Rogers and Kar brought suit against Royal Caribbean in the U.S District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that Royal Caribbean had not paid them "their full wages, including tips, overtime and other compensation, owed under their contracts and/or in accordance with applicable general maritime law as well as California law." The complaint further alleged that Royal Caribbean did not pay Rogers and Kar their full wages within twenty-four hours of the end of each voyage, thereby violating 46 U.S.C. § 10313(f).

On October 13, 2006, Royal Caribbean filed a motion to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the employment contract and the collective bargaining agreement. In a hearing on December 11, 2006, the district court granted the motion from the bench. On January 25, 2007, the district court issued a written order granting the motion to compel and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Rogers and Kar timely appealed.

II. Standard of Review

We review de novo the district court's order granting the defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir.2007); see also Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1267 (9th Cir.2006) ("The validity and scope of an arbitration clause are reviewed de novo. Whether a party has waived the right to sue by agreeing to arbitrate is reviewed de novo."). We also review de novo the district court's interpretation of statutes, as well as its interpretation of treaties to which the United States is a party. Continental Ins. Co. v. Fed. Express Corp., 454 F.3d 951, 954 (9th Cir. 2006); Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 863 (9th Cir.2002). "The burden is on the party opposing arbitration ... to show that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue." Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 227, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987).

III. Discussion

The question in this case is whether the employment agreement's provision for exclusive and mandatory arbitration is enforceable. We hold that it is, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

A. History of Statutory Protections for Seafarers' Wages

Congress first enacted laws to protect the wages of seafaring employees in 1790. See Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 572-73, 102 S.Ct. 3245, 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982). Congress subsequently codified those laws at 46 U.S.C. §§ 596-597. In 1983, Congress altered those statutes slightly and recodified them at 46 U.S.C. § 10313. Act to Revise, Consolidate, and Enact Certain Laws Related to Vessels and Seamen, Pub.L. No. 98-89 ch. 103, 97 Stat. 500 (1983).

As the Supreme Court noted in 1932, "[t]he policy of Congress, as evidenced by its legislation, has been to deal with [seafarers] as a favored class." Bainbridge v. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co., 287 U.S. 278, 282, 53 S.Ct. 159, 77 L.Ed. 302 (1932). In U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles, the Court observed:

Seamen from the start were wards of admiralty. In 1872 it was provided that the federal courts might appoint shipping commissioners to superintend the shipping and discharge of seamen in our merchant fleet. Commissioners indeed served as an administrative adjunct of the federal courts until July 16, 1946, when § 104 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 abolished them. No other administrative agency was substituted. The federal courts remained as the guardians of seamen, the agencies chosen by Congress, to enforce their rights—a guardian concept which, so far as wage claims are concerned, is not much different from what it was in the 18th century.

400 U.S. 351, 355, 91 S.Ct. 409, 27 L.Ed.2d 456 (1971) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In Castillo v. Spiliada Maritime Corp., 937 F.2d 240, 243 (5th Cir.1991), the Fifth Circuit explained the rationale for Congress' decision to afford special statutory status to seafarers and their wage claims:

They enjoy this status because they occupy a unique position. A seaman isolated on a ship on the high seas is often vulnerable to the exploitation of his employer. Moreover, there exists a great inequality in bargaining position between large shipowners and unsophisticated seamen. Shipowners generally control the availability and terms of employment.

To shield shipmen against unfair conduct by shipowners, Congress enacted special wage protection statutes.

Those special wage protection statutes include the provisions now codified at 46 U.S.C. § 10313.

Subsection (f) of Section 10313 states that "[a]t the end of a voyage, the master shall pay each seaman the balance of wages due the seaman within 24 hours after the cargo has been discharged or within 4 days after the seaman is discharged, whichever is earlier." Subsection (g) states that "[w]hen payment is not made as provided under subsection (f) of this section without sufficient cause, the master or owner shall pay to the seaman 2 days' wages for each day payment is delayed." Subsection (i) states that "[t]his section applies to a seaman on a foreign vessel when in a harbor of the United States. The courts are available to the seaman for the enforcement of this section."

In interpreting an earlier version of these statutes, the Supreme Court explained the purpose of the provision making the courts "available to the seaman for the enforcement" of the wage provisions (now 46 U.S.C. § 10313(i)):

The language applies to all seamen on vessels of the United States, and the second proviso of the section as it now reads makes it applicable to seamen on foreign vessels while in harbors of the United States. The proviso does not stop there, for it contains the express provision that the courts of the United States shall be open to seamen on foreign vessels for its enforcement. The latter provision is of the utmost importance in determining the proper construction of this section of the act. It manifests the purpose of Congress to give the benefit of the act to seamen on foreign vessels, and to open the doors of the federal courts to foreign seamen. No such provision was necessary as to American seamen for they had the right independently of this statute to seek redress in the courts of the United States, and if it were the intention of ...