Thomas v. Carnival Corp.

573 F. 3d 1113 (2009)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Thomas v. Carnival Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
573 F. 3d 1113 (2009)

Facts

Puliyurumpil Mathew Thomas (plaintiff) worked as a head waiter on a cruise ship operated by Carnival Corp. (defendant). Thomas’s employment contract with Carnival at that time did not contain an arbitration clause. In November 2004, Thomas slipped and fell while working on the ship, dropping his coffee pot. Thomas suffered injuries to his spine and shoulder, and the coffee burned his leg. Thomas sought treatment from Carnival’s onboard physician, who only addressed the burn. Due to his injuries, Thomas was signed off the vessel, but he was required to use his vacation time instead of receiving medical leave. Thomas did not receive any maintenance payments or treatment for his injuries during that time. In January 2005, Thomas returned to work on Carnival’s ship. Thomas sought treatment several times from the onboard physician for his injury, but he was signed off the vessel once more, again using vacation time without pay. In October 2005, Thomas signed a new contract with Carnival before joining the ship a final time. The new contract contained an arbitration clause requiring that any disputes arising out of Thomas’s employment be arbitrated in the Philippines and resolved under Panamanian law. Thomas was eventually discharged from employment because he was unable to perform his duties. Thomas sued Carnival, alleging a negligence claim under the Jones Act, claims under United States maritime law, and a claim for failure to pay wages under the Seaman’s Wage Act. After removing the case to federal court, Carnival moved to compel arbitration based on the new employment contract under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the convention). The district court granted Carnival’s motion. Thomas appealed, arguing among other things that the convention did not apply because the employment contract that was in effect at the time his claims arose did not contain an arbitration clause, and he further argued that even if the convention could apply to his claims, the public policy of the United States barred enforcement of arbitration.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership