Jane Doe v. Princess Cruse Lines, Ltd., Jane Doe v. Princess
Cruse Lines, Ltd., No. 10-10809 (11th Cir. 2011), addresses the important
necessity of careful corporate drafting of international arbitration
provisions, a topic I have blogged about in the past.
Plaintiff Doe alleged a harrowing story of a woman working
for Princess Cruise Lines on one of its ships, who alleged she was drugged by
other employees, raped, and physically injured while she was unconscious, and,
as the Court of Appeals summarized, “when she reported to officials of the cruise
line what had happened to her they treated her with indifference and even
hostility, failed to provide her with proper medical treatment on board, and
interfered with her attempts to obtain medical treatment and counseling
ashore”. The issue before the Eleventh Circuit was whether and to what extent her
claims were arbitrable under a broad arbitration provision. In addition
to making specific reference to the required arbitrability of claims for
personal injury, the arbitration provision specified:
"[T]he Company and crew member agree that any and all
disputes, claims, or controversies whatsoever (whether in contract, regulatory,
tort or otherwise and whether pre-existing, present or future and including
constitutional, statutory, common law, admiralty, intentional tort and
equitable claims) relating to or in any way arising out of or connected with
the Crew Agreement, these terms, or services performed for the Company."
Despite its breadth, the Court of Appeals determined that
many of the plaintiff’s claims did not have to be arbitrated. The Court
held that the “relating to”, “arising out of”, and “connected to” language
“marks a boundary by indicating some direct relationship” or “direct
connection”; hence, claims that were not even indirectly tethered to the work
environment or relationship fell outside the arbitration provision. The
Court of Appeals so held notwithstanding the following holding of the Supreme
Court in Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 318 U.S. 724 (1943):
"Unlike men employed in service on land, the seaman, when he
finishes his day’s work, is neither relieved of obligations to his employer nor
wholly free to dispose of his leisure as he sees fit. Of necessity, during the
voyage he must eat, drink, lodge and divert himself within the confines of the
ship. In short, during the period of his tenure the vessel is not merely his
place of employment; it is the frame-work of his existence. For that reason
among others his employer’s responsibility for maintenance and cure extends
beyond injuries sustained because of, or while engaged in, activities required
by his employment. In this respect it is a broader liability than that imposed
by modern workmen’s compensation statutes."
The Eleventh Circuit also held that Princess had waived its
right to claim on appeal that the arbitrator, not the Court, should have
decided the issue of arbitrability in the first instance. The Court found that
Princess waived any right to appeal since it was Princess that went to the
District Court in the first place.
If you are interested in receiving a copy of this important decision, please feel free to contact me at miamipandi@comcast.net.
Comments
Post a Comment