Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—EXEMPTIONS—E.D. La.: Liftboat operator failed to show vessel’s cook was overtime-exempt ‘seaman’ under FLSA, (Oct 7, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employer’s statements of undisputed fact did not address the amount of time any of its employees spends on a given task, much less whether those tasks are nautical or maritime tasks.

A liftboat operator was not entitled to summary judgment against a cook’s claim that the employer violated the overtime provisions of state and federal law by paying him a “day rate” regardless of number of hours he worked per week, ruled a federal district court in Louisiana. The employer alleged that the employee was exempt from FLSA overtime as a “seaman.” Although the employer argued that it was undisputed that the work its employees performed on its liftboats was consistent with the operational needs of the vessel, none of its statements of undisputed fact spoke to the amount of time in any given day that any of its liftboat employees spends on any given task (Breaux v. Alliance Liftboats, LLC, No. 24-1000 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2025)).

Overtime claim. On April 19, 2024, the employee filed this suit to recover unpaid overtime wages from his employer, a liftboat operator. The employee worked as a cook aboard a liftboat for three years. He “was paid a day rate,” regardless of the number of hours he worked in a week. According to the employee, he “regularly worked over 40 hours in a week.” He alleged the employer misclassified him as exempt from state and federal overtime law and did not pay him overtime wages.

On May 20, 2025, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the employee is exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions because he is a “seaman” under the FLSA.

Here, the court determined that the employer failed to meet its summary judgment burden. In this case, the employee’s claim for unpaid overtime wages falls under the FLSA. “The FLSA’s baseline requirement is that any employee who works ‘longer than forty hours’ in a workweek must be compensated ‘at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.’” However, an employee is not protected by this broad prohibition if he falls within an exemption from statutory coverage. One of the FLSA’s exemptions applies to “any employee employed as a seaman.”

Seaman exemption. The Fifth Circuit has formulated a two-part test to determine whether an individual is an FLSA-exempt seaman based on U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations. Under this test, an employee is a seaman if: “(1) the employee is subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master; and (2) the employee’s service is primarily offered to aid the vessel as a means of transportation, provided that the employee does not perform a substantial amount of different work.” “The regulations provide that work other than seaman work becomes substantial if it occupies more than 20 percent of the time worked by the employee during the workweek.”

In this case, the employer had to come forward with evidence that (1) the employee is subject to the authority, direction, and control of the liftboat’s captain, (2) his work as a cook aids the liftboat as a means of transportation, and (3) he does not perform a substantial amount of other work that does not aid the liftboat as a means of transportation.

As to the first element, it was undisputed that the defendant’s employees were “subject to the direct supervision of the vessel’s captain, and live, eat, sleep, and work aboard the vessel for the duration of their hitch assignments.”

However, the court found the second element was in dispute. The employer argued that it is undisputed that the work its employees perform on its liftboats is consistent with the operational needs of the vessel and imperative to the vessel’s ability to safely transport people and equipment. This statement failed to contain references to support the employer’s assertion, which was fatal to its motion for summary judgment.

In Adams v. All Coast L.L.C., (Adams II),15 F.4th 365 (5th Cir. 2021), the Fifth Circuit explained that whether a cook is a seaman exempt from the FLSA depends on whether or not the cook is feeding FLSA seamen. If the cook is feeding FLSA seamen, then the cook is an FLSA seaman. If not, then the cook is not an FLSA seaman.

Burden of proof. Because it is the employer’s burden at trial to prove that the employee is exempt from the FLSA, it is the employer’s burden as the summary judgment movant to “come forward with evidence which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’” Under Adams II, the court must assess whether “the employee’s service is primarily offered to aid the vessel as a means of transportation,” and whether the employee performs “a substantial amount of different work.” Thus, the employer had to come forward with evidence of the amount of time the employee devotes to his different job duties.

The employer failed to come forward with evidence of the amount of time its employees spend doing work that aids its liftboats as means of transportation as opposed to “different work.” None of the employer’s statements of undisputed fact spoke to the amount of time in any given day that any of its liftboat employees spends on any given task. As a result, failed to meet its burden to “come forward with evidence which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’”

The case is No. 24-1000.

Judge: Morgan, S.

Attorneys: Cayce Peterson (JJC Law) for Patrick Breaux. David M. Korn (Phelps Dunbar) for Alliance Liftboats, LLC.

Companies: Alliance Liftboats, LLC

Cases: WageHour Exemptions Overtime LouisianaNews