## Facts

- Puliyurumpil Mathew Thomas worked as a seaman for Carnival as a head waiter under successive “Seafarer’s Agreements.”
- In November 2004, Thomas suffered a shipboard slip-and-fall and alleged spinal, shoulder, and burn injuries; the then-existing employment agreement did not include an arbitration clause.
- Thomas alleged Carnival provided inadequate medical treatment, improperly charged vacation time instead of medical leave, failed to provide maintenance and cure, and required him to keep working despite injury.
- In October 2005, before a later assignment, Thomas signed a new Seafarer’s Agreement requiring arbitration of employment-related disputes in the Philippines under Panamanian law.
- After Thomas was discharged for inability to perform his duties, he sued Carnival in Florida state court asserting: (1) Jones Act negligence, (2) unseaworthiness, (3) maintenance and cure, and (4) Seaman’s Wage Act wage-payment violations.
- Carnival removed the case to federal court under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and moved to compel arbitration.
- The district court denied remand and granted the motion to compel arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether the Convention’s prerequisites were met, including whether there was an “agreement in writing” and whether a seaman’s employment contract is “commercial” under the Convention.
2. Whether the Convention’s public-policy defense can be raised at the motion-to-compel stage to resist arbitration that would operate as a prospective waiver of U.S. statutory rights.
3. Whether the arbitration clause and Convention could cover Jones Act and Seaman’s Wage Act claims, and, if so, whether they were nonetheless non-enforceable in the specified forum and choice-of-law setting.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the order compelling arbitration in part.
- The court held the Convention’s jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied, including that seamen’s employment contracts are “commercial” and that the later signed agreement was a written arbitration agreement.
- The court held Thomas could invoke the Convention’s public-policy defense at the motion-to-compel stage where the arbitration clause required a foreign forum and foreign law that would effectively eliminate U.S. statutory remedies.
- The court concluded the clause was unenforceable to the extent it required arbitration in the Philippines under Panamanian law of Thomas’s U.S. statutory claims, particularly his Seaman’s Wage Act claim.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may compel arbitration under the Convention when the agreement meets the four prerequisites: (1) agreement in writing, (2) arbitration in a Convention signatory territory, (3) a commercial legal relationship, and (4) a qualifying foreign element.
- Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, seamen’s employment agreements can constitute “commercial” relationships for Convention purposes.
- The Convention permits refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement where enforcement would be contrary to U.S. public policy.
- An arbitration clause requiring a foreign forum and foreign law may be unenforceable where it operates as a prospective waiver by wholly foreclosing U.S. statutory rights, including statutory wage-penalty remedies.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that although the parties’ seafarer arbitration agreement fell within the Convention, it could not be enforced to compel arbitration of U.S. statutory seamen’s claims where the mandated foreign forum and foreign law would effectively strip those statutory remedies, triggering the Convention’s public-policy exception.


Thomas v. Carnival Corp., 573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2009)