## Facts

- Jerry Smith worked as an at-will seaman for Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, Inc., on rotating two-week shifts with intervening leave periods.
- While serving aboard the M/V TROJAN, Smith injured his ankle near the end of a shift.
- After approximately six weeks of recovery, Smith asked his physician to release him to return to work, and the physician did so despite lingering symptoms.
- Smith returned to work and completed a full two-week shift on another vessel.
- During Smith’s leave, his attorney notified Atlas that Smith intended to assert a personal-injury claim under the Jones Act.
- When Smith’s leave ended, Atlas’s port captain told Smith he could not return to work unless he abandoned the claim; Smith refused, and Atlas terminated his employment.
- Smith sued for Jones Act negligence and for retaliatory discharge under general maritime law.
- After a bench trial, the district court awarded Smith limited damages on the injury claim and found an intentional retaliatory discharge, awarding punitive damages but no compensatory damages for the discharge.

## Issues

1. Whether general maritime law recognizes a cause of action for retaliatory discharge when an at-will seaman is terminated for filing or intending to file a Jones Act personal-injury claim.
2. Whether the proper remedies for maritime retaliatory discharge include compensatory damages, punitive damages, or both.
3. Whether the district court’s damages awards on the Jones Act injury claim and the discharge claim should be modified.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held that an at-will seaman has a general maritime-law cause of action for retaliatory discharge when retaliation for pursuing a Jones Act claim is a substantial motivating factor in the termination.
- The court agreed Atlas discharged Smith because of his intended Jones Act suit and that the discharge was wrongful.
- The court held that compensatory damages are recoverable for the maritime tort of retaliatory discharge.
- The court rejected punitive damages for this retaliatory-discharge claim and required the remedy to be limited accordingly.
- The court modified the district court’s remedial approach by recognizing compensatory damages for the discharge itself and disallowing the punitive-only recovery.

## Legal Principles

- Although maritime employment is generally at will, public-policy limits apply in admiralty, particularly to protect seamen and statutory rights.
- A maritime employer may not terminate a seaman in retaliation for exercising Jones Act rights; such retaliation constitutes a maritime tort.
- Liability attaches when retaliation is a substantial motivating factor for the discharge.
- The proper remedy for maritime retaliatory discharge is compensatory damages (including economic losses such as lost wages); punitive damages are not available on these facts.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit recognized a general maritime-law tort for retaliatory discharge of an at-will seaman terminated for pursuing a Jones Act claim, allowing compensatory damages to redress the firing while disallowing punitive damages in this setting.


Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Serv., Inc., 653 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1981)