Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton

8 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. This Week at the Ninth: Offshore Occupation

    Morrison & Foerster LLP - Left Coast AppealsAdam SorensenJuly 23, 2021

    The Court first explained that OCSLA adopts state law on the Outer Continental Shelf to the extent it is “applicable and not inconsistent with . . . Federal law.” Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019), “the question is whether federal law has already addressed the relevant issue; if so, state law addressing the same issue would necessarily be inconsistent with existing federal law and cannot be adopted as surrogate federal law.” Next, the Court walked through the FLSA’s implementing regulations, concluding that “federal law encourages, but does not require, that employers provide rest breaks” and “requires employers to compensate employees for any rest breaks that are provided.” Because those rules “expressly contemplate meal and rest periods, address how and when these periods must be compensated as work time, and provide a remedy to employees whose employers fail to comply,” the Court held that “there is no gap in federal law for state law to fill,” and thus the California labor code provisions Mauia invoked did not apply. “The fact that federal law does not provide meal- and rest-period protections as robust as California’s does not mean that there is a gap in federal law.”

  2. 5 Key Trends In Workplace Class Action Litigation For 2019: Trend #2 The Impact Of U.S. Supreme Court Rulings

    Seyfarth Shaw LLPGerald Maatman, Jr.January 17, 2020

    As a result, removal under the CAFA is not allowed for third-part counterclaims.Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, et al.,139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019) – Decided on June 10, 2019, this employment class action concerned work on drilling platforms off the California coast where workers received pay for on-duty time, but not time spent on stand-by, during which they could not leave the platform. Plaintiff filed a class action, alleging that California laws required compensation for stand-by time.

  3. 5 Key Trends In Workplace Class Action Litigation For 2019: The Impact Of U.S. Supreme Court Rulings

    Seyfarth Shaw LLPJanuary 16, 2020

    As a result, removal under the CAFA is not allowed for third-part counterclaims.Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, et al., 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019) – Decided on June 10, 2019, this employment class action concerned work on drilling platforms off the California coast where workers received pay for on-duty time, but not time spent on stand-by, during which they could not leave the platform. Plaintiff filed a class action, alleging that California laws required compensation for stand-by time.

  4. Ninth Circuit Dismisses California Wage Claims By Oil Rig Workers, Following High Court Ruling

    Jackson Lewis P.C.August 6, 2019

    Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit has now dismissed Newton’s California minimum wage and overtime claims, and the case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings. You can read our full analysis of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881, 204 L. Ed. 2d 165 (2019) on the Jackson Lewis publications page.

  5. U.S. Supreme Court Roundup – 2018-2019

    Jackson Lewis P.C.Jason GavejianJuly 10, 2019

    State Wage-Hour LawsThe Court held unanimously that workers on oil drilling platforms off the coast of California are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, not California’s overtime and wage laws. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, No. 18-389 (June 10, 2019).Preview Next TermThe Court’s docket for next term, which begins October 2019, is filling up with cases significant to employers and businesses.

  6. Return To The Tidelands – Supreme Court Upholds Application Of Federal Law On The Outer Continental Shelf In The Face Of Parallel State Law

    Baker DonelsonJune 19, 2019

    This decision comes in the midst of a flurry of maritime/maritime-related writ grants in the current term (Newton, Batterton, Thacker, Devries, and ATHOS I) all of which we will be tracking here on Striding the Quarterdeck. This decision may upend decades of jurisprudence in the Fifth Circuit regarding contractual indemnity.In Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, 587 U.S. — (2019), Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court on the discrete issue of whether California’s minimum wage laws (which are more expansive and worker-friendly than the Fair Labor Standards Acts (“FLSA”) viz. overtime pay) applies to workers on OCS platforms (who were paid for their 12 hours on-shift consistent with the FLSA, but were seeking overtime pay for their standby off-shift time on the platform as would be required under California law, but not the FLSA).

  7. U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Primacy of Federal Law on Outer Continental Shelf

    Holland & Knight LLPJ. Michael CavanaughJune 17, 2019

    U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms primacy of federal law on Outer Continental Shelf holding state law may not be adopted where federal law already addresses the issue.In Parker Drilling Management Services Ltd. v. Newton, 587 U.S. __ (2019), the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a conflict between the Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Fifth Circuits interpreting the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., and holding that where federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The underlying action involved a class action lawsuit by a worker on drilling platforms off the coast of California.

  8. Supreme Court: State Wage-and-Hour Laws Inapplicable to Drilling Platform Workers

    Jackson Lewis P.C.Jeffrey W. BrecherJune 14, 2019

    Workers on oil drilling platforms off the coast of California are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), not California’s overtime and wage laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, No. 18-389 (June 10, 2019). Accordingly, the Court ruled that workers are not entitled to be paid for the nonworking time they spend on the platform, including for sleeping.