The Court in the Compass Marine case basically said that the seaman’s best remedy under the seaman’s wage statute was to declare the contract void and revoke his permission for the employer to mail his checks to Compass.
Once the employee so instructs, most employers would probably stop sending the employee’s checks to The recruiter. They would just tell The recruiter to take it up with the seaman but to keep them out of it. But if the personnel guy at the employer is in on the scam, as some people think, and getting a kickback from The recruiter, then the seaman would probably end up getting fired.
The best bet is to just not do business with overreaching recruiters that charge mariners a high fee and take extreme measures to collect it. 14 days of gross pay is about 75% of the first 30 days of net pay. That’s basically working the first three weeks for free. What can you say about an employer that subjects his new employees to such a screwing by this type of scumbag recruiter? I wonder how long these sorts of jobs last?
The 11th Circuit (by way of adopting the Alabama District Federal District Court opinion as if it was written by the 11th Circuit itself) took a very hostile view towards seaman’s claims in Jurich v. Compass Marine, Inc. and Smith v. Seaport Marine, Inc. Note that this is in relation to Smith’s GML claims.
The District Court in Smith states:
“Thus, Smith’s claim against Seaport Marine and Odyssea Marine turns on a decades-old statute that, for all intents and purposes, has never been litigated, much less been held to give rise to a general maritime claim for seaman’s wages in the event of a violation.”
Aka, don’t ask us to create a claim for you.
“The equities do not favor this plaintiff’s opportunistic claim for seaman’s wages. Smith does not purport to have been misled, tricked or forced to assign his wages to Seaport Marine. Indeed, he does not purport to have been wronged at all.” “The point is that the outcome Smith seeks to derive from the proposed general maritime law remedy he invokes would be contrary to principles of equity.”
Ouch. If a Court ever calls your claims “opportunistic” it is best to have a substantial amount of law supporting any claims. In addition to the above, the court cited no less 10 cases for this proposition. That is how a court says pipe down.
“Why should this Court create from whole cloth a heretofore never-recognized general maritime law remedy under which Smith can invalidate the Placement Contract because of a stray word in the PMA that, by all record evidence, affected neither his understanding nor the parties’ course of dealing? That would not be an equitable outcome, much less an appropriate exercise of the judiciary’s responsibility to formulate “flexible and fair remedies” under maritime law.”
Lastly, “At most, the only remedy that might conceivably be equitable in this circumstance would be to invalidate the PMA, while retaining the contractual validity of the Placement Contract. In that event, plaintiff might be entitled to the return of his $3,640 paid to Seaport Marine via the PMA’s paycheck assignment mechanism; however, he would remain on the hook pursuant to the Placement Contract to pay Seaport Marine that full $3,640 placement fee via other means. To grant Smith relief on this basis would be a hollow, empty gesture, because the Court would essentially be taking $3,640 out of Seaport Marine’s pocket and returning it to Smith because of a technically deficient PMA, then ordering Smith to repay that same $3,640 to Seaport Marine pursuant to the valid, binding Placement Contract. The law does not require or endorse such futile acts, the net result of which would be to restore all parties to their present positions.”
I agree with the proposition that one shouldn’t do business with those they don’t trust.