Reported / Citable
Background
Brannon Melancon allegedly injured his shoulder while working on the pipe deck of the Deepwater Proteus, a drillship owned or operated by Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. and Triton Capital I GMBH. Melancon was employed by Schlumberger Technology Corporation as a completions engineer and was transported from the vessel for medical treatment after the February 18, 2025 incident.
Melancon sued in Texas state court, asserting negligence claims against all defendants, unseaworthiness claims against Transocean and Triton, and a maintenance-and-cure claim against Schlumberger. The defendants removed the action based on federal-question jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Melancon sought remand, arguing that his Jones Act claim was nonremovable and that seaman status was a merits issue that should not be decided at the remand stage.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied remand. It held that a district court may examine seaman status when deciding whether a Jones Act claim was fraudulently pleaded. Although Melancon’s work contributed to the drillship’s function or mission, the court concluded that he had no reasonable possibility of establishing the substantial connection to a vessel or fleet required for Jones Act seaman status.
Considering Melancon’s entire employment with Schlumberger, the court found that he spent only 21.25% of his offshore workdays aboard Transocean vessels, below the 30% rule of thumb. The nature of his connection also weighed against seaman status: he remained aligned with Schlumberger, worked short-term jobs on vessels and platforms operated by numerous companies, and left each vessel when the assigned job ended. Although his work was sea-based, the court characterized him as a specialized transient worker rather than a member of a vessel’s crew. His Jones Act claim therefore was fraudulently pleaded and did not prevent removal, while OCSLA supplied an undisputed basis for federal jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A court may evaluate Jones Act seaman status at the remand stage to determine whether the claim was fraudulently pleaded.
- The relevant duration analysis encompassed Melancon’s full employment with Schlumberger, not only the period beginning with his first Transocean assignment.
- Sea-based work alone did not establish seaman status where the worker performed discrete, short-term assignments across vessels and platforms operated by multiple companies.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a Jones Act claim may lose its statutory protection against removal when the employment record leaves no reasonable possibility of proving seaman status. Offshore contractors whose workers rotate among unrelated vessels for discrete assignments may rely on the worker’s overall history, allegiance, and assignment structure to show that the worker’s vessel connection was transitory.
It also confirms that, when an independent federal-jurisdiction basis such as OCSLA exists, a district court may resolve the threshold seaman-status question rather than automatically severing and remanding a pleaded Jones Act claim.