Caribbean Marine Services Co. v. Baldrige
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
844 F.2d 668 (1988)
In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Act) to reduce incidental injuries to marine mammals during commercial-fishing operations. Pursuant to the Act, Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige promulgated regulations requiring fishing-permit holders to allow an observer from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to accompany fishing vessels. Caribbean Marine Services Company, Inc. (CMS) (plaintiff), which owned tuna-fishing boats, brought suit against Baldrige, NOAA Administrator Anthony Calio, and other government officials (defendants) after Calio adopted a new policy of hiring female as well as male observers and assigned a female observer to CMS. CMS sought preliminary injunctive relief, arguing that (1) female observers would violate the privacy of male crew members, as observers had to share tiny bunkrooms and bathrooms with crew members and would consequently see each other undressed and performing bodily functions; (2) female observers would be at risk of sexual assault and harassment, thus subjecting CMS to uninsurable liability; and (3) the presence of female observers would interfere with operations by forcing officers to devote attention to protecting the female observers from inappropriate conduct rather than catching tuna. The defendants presented evidence of (1) women serving as observers successfully; (2) the infrequency of assault and harassment of female observers; and (3) private rooms being commonly available on fishing vessels, with male and female observers commonly being accommodated in those rooms. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, holding that the balance of hardships tipped towards CMS because (1) an injunction would uphold the status quo, (2) the tuna industry had financial problems, (3) female observers would disturb the domestic aspect of the vessels, and (4) declarations from CMS speculated that accommodating female observers would be costly. The district court further held that CMS had raised serious questions of law. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wallace, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.