A couple years ago the Fifth Circuit decided Naquin v. EBI, and it ruled that a dock worker can be both a longshoreman and a Jones Act seaman, which is weird because those two things are mutually exclusive. And a petition for en banc review was filed, and denied, and so the law is that if you work in a shipyard that repairs your company’s own vessels, and you repair those vessels, you are probably a longshoreman and a Jones Act seaman. You gotta do two things to be a Jones Act seaman: (1) spend 30%+ of your time on a boat or fleet under common ownership or control; and, (2) contribute to the mission of the vessel. Contributing is really broad, too. You end up with some weird results.
So when Gilbert Sanchez worked on a shore-side jack-up rig (a vessel) which rig was always jacked up and never moved during his work, and he welded on that vessel (contributing to the mission), he was a Jones Act seaman. Thus spake the Fifth Circuit.
This is a little weird. As the Court explained, Mr. Sanchez “was land-based, lived at home, and traveled to and from work every day. During the 48 days he worked on the ENTERPRISE WFD 350, the barge was jacked up adjacent to and one step away from the dock. While he performed welding repair services on the barge, it was never jacked down into the water or moved away from the dock.” Not exactly what you’d consider “subject to the perils of the sea,” right?
So a weird thing happened. Judge Davis issued a concurrence to his own opinion, and the whole panel joined, saying that the Fifth Circuit should take the case en banc to straighten the nonsense out. We’ll see what comes of it.