Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: April 16, 2019
Decided: June 10, 2019
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh


Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 16, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.[1]

In a unanimous opinion on June 10, 2019, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, holding "to the extent federal law applies to a particular issue, state law is inapplicable" under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.[2] Click here for more information about the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Brian Newton worked for Parker Drilling Management Services ("Parker") on a drilling platform fixed on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). He worked 14-day shifts and regularly worked for 12 hours each day. Newton alleges he ate for 15 to 30 minutes during his shifts without clocking out and that Parker did not provide 30-minute meal periods for each five hours worked. After Parker terminated his employment, Newton sued in a state court for wage and hour violations under California law. Parker removed the case to federal district court, which found California law offered Newton no protection. Newton appealed to the 9th Circuit, which vacated the district court's findings, finding that the district court erred in dismissing the claims.
  • The issues: Whether, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, state law is borrowed as the applicable federal law only when there is a gap in the coverage of federal law, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has held, or whenever state law pertains to the subject matter of a lawsuit and is not pre-empted by inconsistent federal law, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held.
  • The outcome: In a unanimous opinion on June 10, 2019, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, holding "to the extent federal law applies to a particular issue, state law is inapplicable" under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]

    Timeline

    • June 10, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the ruling of the 9th Circuit
    • April 16, 2019: Oral argument
    • January 11, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • September 24, 2018: Petition filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 5, 2018: The 9th Circuit vacated and remanded the case

    Background

    The respondent Brian Newton worked for Parker Drilling Management Services ("Parker") on a drilling platform fixed on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). He worked 14-day shifts and regularly worked for 12 hours each day. Newton alleges he ate for 15 to 30 minutes during his shifts without clocking out and that Parker did not provide 30-minute meal periods for each five hours worked. After Parker terminated his employment, Newton sued in a state court for wage and hour violations under California law. Parker removed the case to federal district court.

    The district court recognized that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) contains a clause that expressly allows for more protective state wage and overtime laws. However it concluded that the FLSA is exclusive of California wage and hour laws, and thus California's laws offered Newton no protection.

    Newton appealed to the 9th Circuit, which vacated the district court's ruling. The 9th Circuit found that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act allows the laws of adjacent states to apply to drilling platforms as long as state law is what they said “applicable” and “not inconsistent” with federal law. The court said California’s wage and hour laws are not inconsistent with the FLSA, so the district court erred in dismissing the claims.[3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[4]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, state law is borrowed as the applicable federal law only when there is a gap in the coverage of federal law, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has held, or whenever state law pertains to the subject matter of a lawsuit and is not pre-empted by inconsistent federal law, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held.

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion on June 10, 2019, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, holding "to the extent federal law applies to a particular issue, state law is inapplicable" under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.[2]

    Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[2]

    “ The standard we adopt today is supported by the statute’s text, structure, and history, as well as our precedents. Under that standard, if a federal law addresses the issue at hand, then state law is not adopted as federal law on the OCS.[5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion [Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-389_4g15.pdf here].

    Audio


    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Docket No. 18-389," accessed March 15, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, decided June 10, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Case Text, "Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd.," accessed March 15, 2019
    4. ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton," accessed March 15, 2019
    5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Parker_Drilling_Management_Services,_Ltd._v._Newton&oldid=8891778"