Case No. 18-389 | 9th Cir.
Preview by Taylor Dowd, Senior Online Editor
In Parker Drilling, the Court will decide whether or not the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act allows borrowing of state law only when there is a gap in federal law, a question on which the Fifth and Ninth Circuits disagree.
The outer Continental Shelf is comprised of underwater lands subject to United States, not state, jurisdiction. 43 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (2012). The Respondent, Newton, works 14-day shifts on an oil platform on the Outer Continental Shelf. He spends the entirety of the shift on the platform, but 12 hours each day are spent off-duty. After California decided that an employer and employee cannot agree to exclude sleep time from an employee’s compensation, Newton sought backpay for his uncompensated sleep time. The Fair Labor Standards Act, however, does not support compensation for sleep.
Applying the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Ninth Circuit borrowed state law and found sleep time could be compensated. Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., 881 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2018). The Petitioner, Parking Drilling, argues that under the Act, the court should not have borrowed state law. The Act states that federal law covers the outer Continental Shelf, but also states that when “applicable and not inconsistent” with federal law, state laws “are declared to be the law of the United States . . . .”43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(2)(A). Parker Drilling argues that the California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act are inconsistent because one does and one does not allow compensation for every hour, and that they are both considered federal law causes a “glaring inconsistency.” Brief for Petitioner at 16, Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs. v. Newton, No. 18-389 (U.S. filed Feb. 20, 2019). Parker Drilling also argues that state law is not “applicable” when there is not a gap in the federal law because establishing that federal law governs the outer Continental Shelf was the “most fundamental decision Congress made” in the enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Id. at 15.
Newton, however, interprets “applicable” to mean that borrowed state law must pertain to the relevant subject matter, and contends that Parker Drilling’s interpretation of “applicable” is not supported in the statute or legislative history. Brief for Respondent at 28, Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., No. 18-389 (U.S. filed Mar. 22, 2019). Newton also argues that the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the two laws are not inconsistent because the Fair Labor Standards Act contains a savings clause that upholds application of state laws that provide greater protections than the Fair Labor Standards Act. Id. at 29–32.