Respondent Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. operates a fleet of barges used for oil and gas exploration. When Rig 52, one of respondent’s oil and gas exploration barges, was drilling a well in Louisiana’s territorial waters in 1997, an explosion on board killed or injured several workers. The United States Coast Guard investigated the incident, but did not accuse respondent of violating any of its regulations. However, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited respondent for violation of the OSH Act and its regulations. Respondent challenged OSHA’s jurisdiction to issue the citations on the grounds that Rig 52 was not a workplace under § 4(a) of the Act and that §4(b)(1) of the Act pre-empted OSHA jurisdiction because the Coast Guard had exclusive authority to prescribe and enforce occupational safety and health standards on vessels such as Rig 52. Pre-emption under § 4(b)(1) of the Act extends to working conditions with respect to which other federal agencies have exercised their authority. In handing down his decision, the administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected both of respondent’s challenges, but was later reversed by the Fifth Circuit. However, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and has now reversed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, holding that while OSHA has been pre-empted with respect to inspected vessels since the Coast Guard has broad statutory authority to regulate the occupational health and safety of workers aboard inspected vessels, that does not mean that all OSHA regulation of uninspected vessels has been pre-empted. With respect to uninspected vessels, the Coast Guard regulates matters related to marine safety, such as fire extinguishers, life preservers, engine flame arrestors, engine ventilation and emergency locating equipment. Therefore, the Court noted that the Coast Guard’s minimal exercise of authority over certain vessel conditions on uninspected vessels did not result in pre-emption of OSHA jurisdiction.

Plaintiff was injured while performing case work as a welder on a jack-up drilling rig. At the time of his injury, the rig was jacked up on the Outer Continental Shelf off the shore of Louisiana. In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether OCSLA makes the LHWCA applicable to plaintiff’s injuries. In addressing that issue, the court examined whether the rig was an OCSLA situs. As the rig was jacked up on the Outer Continental Shelf at the time of plaintiff’s injury, the court held that it was a device temporarily attached to the seabed erected for the purpose of drilling for oil, and therefore falling into one of the two categories of OCSLA situses. Therefore, the court held that the jack-up drilling rig met the OCSLA situs test.

An employer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the amount of maintenance awarded to the Plaintiffs at the district court level. The employer argued that since plaintiffs lived with their families, their lodging expenses should have been divided among the household. As a consequence, the employer argued that the maintenance awards should have then only reflected each plaintiff’s pro rata share of food and lodging expenses. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected the idea of prorating a seaman’s maintenance depending upon how many people live in the home. Rather, the court held that where a seaman pays the rent or mortgage of a home he shares with his family, the total amount of the rent or mortgage, and not a prorated amount, represents the seaman’s actual expenses. The court also held that a seaman may not recover maintenance unless he presents evidence of his actual expenses.