WPC~x mp#|cuo;cVs+/#rͽXx(]J9e Y<Ì*'NžQ'TS.E(T[LB&,žY K'|{[h*y{Y :Nz)Ȫ9%hȽDMM'&'ܘaw:@WmzaIk@]uʷ%{:r\K22=hdl^ay,^ܼc,!7>^u{͡']6<0-'(:,频8joG^aDD)]7fV/u. sn-uׄA?]S/F7wU 1ig$E1WLɖC/yHmVC)Uw hk\ds6B1h`$lhq']fLK:Įha.b,[p %  0D& 0GjU:U&8 0# UN nT Nm UFo ^ w 4   m E f a b :! [ #c 0U,x 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0B 0 0C 00 0 0 0 Bz 0 0b 0* 0 0@ 0 0 0 0b! 0-" 0" 0# 0|$ 009% 0<i% 0% 0>c& 0v& 0`' 0`w' 0`' 0`7( 0`( 08( 0/) 02* 03* 0:/+ 0Yi+ 0_+ 0 !, 0j+- 0. B*0 D/C0 D+r0 00 D/!2 0P2 063 0T3 0:\4 0^4 0<4 1e05U65U>5U* 6 1u36 7266;;N;b;h;^1>UB>b>U>>E?\BGOtQ][T{V(3\[]:fhy oX(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT<4 9Z+ Courier New (F:2#V$ !XXXX        0  (A Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular#3  ʑ2 y File3|x UTABLE A- - 0#Xd#   HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0*+ (_2623  .. n #V$XXXX      1    _Theroleplayedbytheotherdefendantinthiscase,Modern  ContinentalConstructionCo.,isunclear.Throughouttheopinion,  werefertobothdefendantssimplyas"BostonHarbor."*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7J(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SV\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X7&  d dI)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7M(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SV\  `&Times New RomanS7K(X7I)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSV\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  "#$%&()* 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Xi)  #V$XXXX      3    _Itistruethatoneoftheamici,theNationalAssociationof  PassengerVesselOwners,Inc.,challengessomeoftheDepartmentof  Labor'sregulationsbasedontheirunworkabilityinlightof \ industrypractice.TheAssociation'sconcernsaboutthe 2 _workability_Ԁoftheschemeestablishedbysomeoftheregulations X arefactintensiveissuesthat,liketheotherquestionsinthis . case,arebestdealtwithafterafullrecordhasbeenestablished.   Manyofthechallengesmayproveunnecessary,dependingonhowthe   factualrecorddevelopsduringdiscovery,andallofthechallenges `   requireinformationaboutthenatureoftheindustryandthe  applicationoftheSecretary'stestthatwedonotyethave.These  challengesmay,ofcourse,beraisedandexploredbelowonremand. \     - - ^ #V$XXXX      2    _Thecomplaintwasfiled"onbehalfofherselfandallothers  similarlysituated."Itisunclearfromthecomplaintand  accompanyingdocumentswhetherMcLaughlinsoughttobringaclass \ actionorinsteadacollectiveactionunderthe_FLSA_.See29 2 U.S.C.216(b).Wehavenooccasiontoaddresstheseprocedural X issues.L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular ; #V$XXXX      5    _BostonHarboralsopointsoutthat,accordingto_Goodrow_,  whereastatutedoesnoteffectivelydefineaterm,thatterm  shouldbedefinedinaccordancewiththecommonmeaningoftheword \ andinlightofthehistoricalcircumstancesofitsenactment.See 2 732N.E.2dat294.Wehavefoundnorelevantlegislativehistory, X andwethinkitprematuretointerpretthecommonmeaningofthe . term"seaman"ortoapply_it_Ԁbeforeafactualrecordhasbeen   developed.  #V$XXXX      1    _ԀBayStateDredgingwasdecidedonstipulatedfacts.The  plaintiffsworkedonahydraulicdredge,afloatingplatform  equippedwithapumpthatcansuckmudfromariverbottomand \ propelittoshorethroughapipeline.Thepersonnelincluded"a 2 captain,oneoperator,onemate,fourdeckhands,oneoiler,one X fireman,acook,amessboyandawatchman."149F.2dat348.The . captain"usuallyhassomeknowledgeofnavigation."Id.The   dredgehassomeindependentabilitytomove,althoughitmayremain   inoneplaceforseveralweekswhenworking.Whenworkingfarfrom `  Boston,theemployeeswouldliveonboard;whenclosetoBoston, 6   manywouldgoashoreeverydaytosleep.Basedonthesefacts,the  \  courtfoundthat"[_t]heir_Ԁworkwasessentiallyconnectedwith  2  excavationandnotwithnavigation,"id.at349,theydidnotcome   withintheseamanexemptionofthe_LFSA_,andtheywerethus   entitledtoovertimepay.  #V$XXXX      2    _ԀParticularreferencewasmadetotheMerchantMarineActof  1936,Pub.L.No.74835,49Stat.1985,whichamongotherthings  createdtheUnitedStatesMaritimeCommission.BypassingtheAct, \ Congressintendedto"fosterthedevelopmentandencouragethe 2 maintenance"ofamerchantmarineabletoservethecountry's X commercialneedswhilealso"capableofservingasanavaland . militaryauxiliaryintimeofwarornationalemergency."TitleI,   101.TheActdidnotsayanythingaboutovertimepay;the   Commissionwas"directedtoinvestigatetheemploymentandwage `  conditionsinoceangoingshipping"andthendevelop"minimum 6   manningscalesandminimumwagescalesandreasonableworking  \  conditions"onboardcertainsubsidizedvessels.TitleIII,  2  301(a).ThosedutiesareassignednowtotheSecretaryof   Transportation.See46U.S.C.App.1131.     TheMaritimeCommissionnolongerexists.Itwasabolished d  anditsfunctionstransferredtotheFederalMaritimeBoardandthe :  SecretaryofCommerce.See15Fed.Reg.3178(May24,1950). `  Elevenyearslater,theFederalMaritimeBoardwasabolishedand 6 itsfunctionstransferredtowhatisnowcalledtheFederal   MaritimeCommission,whichstillexiststoday.See26Fed.Reg.  7315(Aug.12,1961).Itsregulationsappearat46C.F.R._pts_. h 500599.  #V$XXXX      3    _ԀAtthetime,HugoL.BlackwasasenatorfromAlabama.  Shortlythereafter,PresidentFranklinD.Rooseveltnominatedhim  toserveontheSupremeCourt,theSenateconfirmedhim,andhewas \ sworninasanAssociateJusticeonAugust14,1937.  #V$XXXX      4    _ԀSee,e.g.,_Harkins_v._Riverboat_ԀServices,Inc.,385F.3d  1099(7thCir.2004);Owensv._SeaRiver_ԀMaritime,Inc.,272F.3d  698(5thCir.2001);PacificMerchantShipping_Assn_v._Aubry_,918 \ F.2d1409(9thCir.1990);Dolev.PetroleumTreaters,Inc.,876 2 F.2d518(5thCir.1989). S #V$XXXX      4    _Wedonotsuggestthatitwouldbeinappropriatetodispose  ofthisoranyothercaseatsummaryjudgmentifthesummary  judgmentstandardsaremet.Wealsonotethatthedistrictcourt \ wasnotgiventhebenefitoftheviewsexpressed,forthefirst 2 timeonappeal,bythetwoamici.Thedistrictcourtmaywishto X considerthoseviewsonremand. q #V$XXXX      5    _ԀIn1961,Congressamendedthe_FLSA_Ԁto,amongotherthings,  extendthelaw'sminimumwageprovisionstoseamenworkingon  Americanflaggedvessels.(Before,noseamenhadbeenentitledto \  theminimumwage.)Basedonthatamendment,theFifthCircuit  decidedthatCongresshadacquiescedintheLaborDepartment's  announcedinterpretation: \ In1961,Congressrevisitedseamencoveragemakingafew X changes.[Congress]didnotseek,however,tochangethe . interpretivedefinitiongivenbytheSecretaryastowho   areseamen.See_Lorillard_v.Pons,434U.S.575,580   (1978)("Congressispresumedtobeawareofan `  administrativeorjudicialinterpretationofastatute 6   andtoadoptthatinterpretationwhenitreenactsa  \  statutewithoutchange.").  2  PetroleumTreaters,876F.2dat522(citationomitted).  #V$XXXX      6    _ԀThisresultholdstruewhensearchingforvariantsofthe  phrase,too,like"workersengagedintransportationbywater."  #V$XXXX      7    _Ԁ XXXXTheJonesActiscriticalinthepanoplyoflegal  protectionsthatCongresshasprovidedforseamen.TheSupreme  Courthasoutlinedatwosteptesttodetermineifsomeoneisa \ "seaman"undertheJonesAct.First,"anemployee'sdutiesmust 2 _contribut[e_]tothefunctionofthevesselortotheaccomplishment X ofitsmission."McDermottInt'lv._Wilander_,498U.S.337,355 . (1991).Second,"aseamanmusthaveaconnectiontoavesselin   navigation(ortoanidentifiablegroupofsuchvessels)thatis   substantialintermsofbothitsdurationanditsnature." `  _Chandris_,Inc.v._Latsis_,515U.S.347,368(1995).Seealso 6   Stewartv.DutraConstr.Co.,__U.S.__(2005)(construingthe  \  meaningoftheterm"vessel"inthe_LHWCA_).  2    UndertheJonesAct,then,manyworkersarerecognizedas   seameneventhoughtheirworkhaslittleornothingtodo,strictly   speaking,withoperatingthevessele.g.,"firemen,engineers, d  carpenters,andcooks."McDermott,498U.S.at343(1991).The :  Courthasrejectedanarrow"aidtonavigation"testinthis `  respect.Inthecontextofthe_FLSA_,however,werejectedabroad 6 testthatwoulddefinetheterm"seaman"asbeing"flexibleenough    tocovergroupsofemployeeswhoseworkisnotdirectlyconnected  withnavigationandtransportationbywater,includingdredge  workers."149F.3dat348.Again,contextmatters.#XXX X#  #V$XXXX      8    _Ԁ XXXXInherbrief,McLaughlinadmitstothe"occasionalhandling  oflinesduringdockingprocedures,"adutywhichrelatesmore  closelytooperatingtheferryitself.Shedidnotmentionthat \ responsibilityinhercomplaint'sallegations,andweignoreitfor 2 presentpurposes.Thatacknowledgmentemphasizes,however,the X importanceofdevelopingthefactsofthiscasecarefully.#XXX X#  #V$XXXX      9    _ԀAstheDepartmentstatesinitsamicusbrief,  thedistrictcourt'sdismissalistantamounttoafinding \ thatdeckhandsoncommuterboatsareexempt"water 2 transportationworkers"under13(b)(6)[oftheFLSA]as X amatteroflaw.Clearly,theIB[interpretivebulletin] . andthecaselawinstructthatwhattheemployeeis   called,orwheretheworkisperformed,isnot   determinative.Eachcasemustbeanalyzedindependently `  inaccordancewiththeSecretary's"aidto 6   transportation"test.  \  However,attheendofitsbrief,theDepartmentlosesitsfocuson    thepreliminarystageofthiscasewhenit"suggeststhatthecase  beremandedforadeterminationofthefactsandforapplicationof  thelawinaccordancewiththeSecretary'sinterpretationtothose \ facts."Weareremandingforadeterminationofthefacts. 2 However,thedistrictcourtwillhavetodecideinthefirst X instanceifitispersuadedbytheSecretary'sinterpretationof . theregulationsappliedtothosefacts. o #V$XXXX      10    _ԀBostonHarbormakestheclaimthattheregulations  incorporatetwocasesthatexcludedfromovertimepay all  personnelemployedbytheowneronboardferries":namely,Walling \ v._Keansburg_ԀSteamboatCo.,162F.2d405(3dCir.1947),andHelena 2 GlendaleFerryCo.v.Walling,132F.2d616(8thCir.1942).I X disagreethateithercasestandsforsuchabroadproposition. . Botharemarkedbyapaucityofinformationastotheactualduties   ofemployeeslikeMcLaughlin.     Theferriesin_Keansburg_ԀSteamboattransportedpassengersfrom `  MaytoOctoberandstayedmooredtothedocktherestoftheyear. 6   Abouthalfthecrewwouldbedismissedforthemooringperiod,  \  whiletheotherhalfwouldstayontoperformrepairs.162F.2dat  2  406.Thecourtheldthatthissecondgroupremainedseamenand   werethusexcludedfromovertimepay.Id.at40708.Althoughthe   courtalsoreferredinpassingtothefirstgroupofworkersas d  seamen,theywerenotthefocusofthecase.Thuswedonothave :  agoodbasisforcomparingMcLaughlinsallegeddutieswiththeirs. `    HelenaGlendaleissimilarlyunenlighteningforourpurposes. 6 Thatcaseprincipallyconcernedthreeemployeesofaferrycompany   whodidnotworkonferriesatall:one,forexample,workedas  superintendentofacottonplantationneartheMississippiRiver. h 132F.2dat61819.Asfortheactualferryworkersemployedby > thecompany,thecourtnotedthat [_a]pparently_theywereseamen, d but,asin_Keansburg_ԀSteamboat,thecourtdidnotsayanything : aboutthenatureoftheirduties.Id.at618. !XXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !XXXX3XX     h\OY=XXdd=[OY UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsp3  FortheFirstCircuit  Tp XX T  A') ` dE<` A      `     h No.041519 u  =XXdXXd=@"MEGAN_McLAUGHLIN_, ! q @ Plaintiff,Appellant,    @tt)v. y    @@BOSTONHARBORCRUISELINES,INC.; %u  MODERNCONTINENTALCONSTRUCTIONCO.,INC., K  @Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS ^   [Hon.GeorgeA._O'Toole_,Jr.,U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @*  Before K   Lynch,Lipez,andHoward,CircuitJudges. G A') ` dE<` A         VincentP.Dunn,withwhomElizabethB.CrouchandDunnand " Dunnwereonbrief,forappellant. ^ #   RichardD.Wayne,withwhomBrienE.Lewisand_Hinckley_,Allen 4!$ &Snyder_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellees.  "Z%   CarolB._Feinberg_,withwhomHowardM._Radzely_,Solicitor, "0& StevenJ.Mandel,AssociateSolicitor,andPaulL._Frieden_,Counsel #' forAppellateLitigation,wereonbrief,forU.S.Departmentof $( Labor,amicuscuriae. b% )   StephenE._Bers_,withwhom_Whiteford_,Taylor&Preston,_LLP_ 8&!* wasonbrief,forNationalAssociationofPassengerVesselOwners, '^"+ Inc.,amicuscuriae. '4#, *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  f*%/f*%  SI*&0 @38580@SAugust17,2005 +&2  RHCv,'3" @38580 @ R(*&4  (* ! |-(4? h 8XXdd8   XXX X   8aaXXdXXd8b*,X` XX*=ccXXdXXd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge. Theultimateissueinthiscase  revolvesaroundtheexemptionfor"anyemployeeemployedasa x seaman"fromtheovertimerequirementsoftheFairLaborStandards $t Actof1938("_FLSA_").29U.S.C.213(b)(6).Theplaintiff,Megan   McLaughlin,workedonaBostonbasedcommuterferryownedand |  operatedbyheremployer,BostonHarborCruiseLines,Inc("Boston ( x  Harbor"). #  1      Shesued,allegingthatBostonHarborwasnotpaying $  herovertimepaythatwasduetoherunderthe_FLSA_,29U.S.C.   207,aswellassimilarMassachusettslaw. H   ` Inresponse,BostonHarborfiledamotiontodismissfor D failuretostateaclaimunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6),noting  thatanyemployeeemployedasa"seaman"wasexemptfromthe L overtimerequirementsunderthe_FLSA_,andallegingthat,basedon H McLaughlin'scomplaint,shecouldprovenosetoffactsthatwould  takeheroutsideofthisexemption.Thedistrictcourtagreedwith P BostonHarboranddismissedthecase.Becausetheapplicabilityof L the"seaman"exemptiontoanindividuallikeMcLaughlinisafact   dependentissuethatisbestdecidedafterafullfactualrecord T!" hasbeencompiled,itwaserrortodismissthiscaseatthe #P$ 12(b)(6)stage.Wereverse,vacatethedismissal,andremandfor $& furtherproceedings. X&!(   (T#*   I._    ComplaintandProceduralHistory x  ` Sincethiscasewasdecidedona12(b)(6)motionto $t dismiss,andnodiscoveryhasoccurred,werecitetheallegations   astheyappearinMcLaughlin'scomplaint. |   ` InhercomplaintfiledMay14,2003,__ #  2      _ԀMcLaughlinalleges ( x  thatshewasemployedbyBostonHarborfromJune1997through $  December2002# XXXX;#XXX X,workingononeofitscommuterboatsfor   approximately80hoursperweekinthesummerandapproximately60 ,|  hoursperweekinthewinter.Shewaspaidanhourlywageof ( between$8perhourand$11.50perhourand,shealleges,wasnot  paidovertimeforherhoursinexcessof40perweek.  0  ` McLaughlin'sallegationsaboutthenatureofher , employmentonthecommuterferryarequitesparse,occupyingonly  afewsentences.Sheallegesthather"duties"throughouther 4 employmentwerethoseofa"_deckhand_.""Forexample,shetook 0 passenger'stickets,loadedandunloadedpassengers,collected   fares,stoodbyatthedocktoensuresafeexitingofpassengers 8!" andswepttheboatanddockareas."  # XXXXy#XXX XShefurtherallegesthat "4$ "[_f]or_Ԁmorethan90%ofheraverageworkday,sheengagedin $& \OY \ \  activitiesnotrelatedtothenavigation"ofthecommuterferry.  Sheaddedthatshewasnot"activelyengagedintheoperationor \ navigationofthecommutervesselsuponwhichsheworked"andthat X "[_s]he_Ԁdidnotoperatethevessels,chartcourses,monitorradaror   performanyotherdutiesrelatedtothenavigationofthesubject `  commutervessels."  \   ` AfterBostonHarborfileditsmotiontodismissand   accompanyingmemorandumoflaw,thedistrictcourtscheduleda d  hearingforMarch11,2004.However,nosuchhearingwasever `  held;onthedaythatwasscheduledforthehearing,thedistrict   courtgrantedBostonHarbor'smotiontodismiss"substantiallyfor h thereasonsadvancedinthedefendants'papers." Nowritten d opinionwasissued.   ` McLaughlinfiledatimelyappeal.Onappeal,two l entities,theSecretaryofLaborandtheNationalAssociationof h PassengerVesselOwners,Inc.(anindustrytradeassociation),have  filedamicusbriefswithus.Thedistrictcourtdidnothavethe p  benefitoftheseamici. !l" ArgumentsonAppeal "$  ` Onappeal,McLaughlinreliesheavilyonherviewofthe t$& interpretativeregulationsissuedbytheDepartmentofLabor,see  &p!( 29C.F.R.pt.783.McLaughlinpointsoutthattheregulations '#* statethatitisthe"characterofthework"performed,andnot x)$, "whatitiscalledortheplacewhereitisperformed,"that $+t&. determineswhethersomeoneis"employedasaseaman"thus,the  factthatsheworksonaboatisnotdeterminative.29C.F.R. \ 783.33.Further,McLaughlin# XXXX#XXX XԀemphasizestheLaborDepartment's X formulationthatanemployeewillberegardedasa"seaman"for   purposesoftheexemptiononlyifsheperforms"servicewhichis `  renderedprimarilyasanaidintheoperationofsuchvesselasa  \  meansoftransportation,provided[_s]he_Ԁperformsnosubstantial   workofadifferentcharacter."29C.F.R.783.31.McLaughlin d  arguesthatbecausemostofherworkinvolvedtakingtickets, `  loadingandunloadingpassengers,andcleaningtheboat,shedoes   notmeetthistest.Finally,McLaughlinstatesthatthe h legislativehistoryofthe_FLSA_Ԁmakesitclearthattheexemption d shouldbeinterpretednarrowlyanddifferentlyfromotheractslike  theJonesAct,see46U.S.C.App.688(a),soasnottoexclude l toomanyworkersfrom_FLSA_Ԁprotections.AlthoughMcLaughlinargues h asthoughsheisentitledtojudgmentinherfavor,shealsoargues  thatdismissalwaswrongbecausesheisentitledtodiscover p  additionalfacts. !l"  ` TheSecretaryofLabor,inheramicusbriefinsupportof "$ McLaughlin,arguesessentiallythatMcLaughlin'sproposed t$& interpretationandapplicationoftheDepartmentofLabor  &p!( regulationsdealingwiththe"seaman"exemptioniscorrect, '#* reflectstheSecretary'sown"longstandinginterpretation"ofthese x)$, regulations,andshouldbeadoptedbythecourt. 򀀀  $+t&.  ` BostonHarboralsoreliesheavilyontheDepartmentof  Laborregulations,butitinterpretsthemdifferently.Inits \ view,theregulationsclassifyworkersintothreegroups:(1) X "watertransportationworkers,e.g.membersofthecrew,"(2)   employees,suchasconcessionaires,whodonotreporttothemaster `  oftheship,and(3)"industrialemployees."See29C.F.R.  \  783.32,783.33,783.34.BostonHarborbelievesthatthefirst   groupfallsundertheexemption,whilethesecondandthirddonot. d  ItviewsallofMcLaughlin'sduties# XXXX)#XXX Xasfallingintothefirst `  group.TheSecretary'scontraryinterpretationoftheregulations   articulatedinheramicusbrief,BostonHarborargues,isentitled h tonodeferencebecauseitisinconsistentwiththeSecretary's d pastinterpretationsandhasbeenassertedforthefirsttimeina  litigationcontext.BostonHarboralsoarguesthattheordinary l meaningoftheterm"seaman"wouldincludeany"water h transportationworkers,"includingsomeonelikeMcLaughlin,and  thatthelegislativehistorymakesitclearthatCongressintended p  togivethetermitsordinarymeaning.Finally,BostonHarbor !l" arguesthatthedefinitionoftheterm"seaman"withinthe_FLSA_ "$ shouldnotbeoverlynarrow,andshouldgenerallymatchthe t$& definitiongiveninotherstatutes,sothat"seamen"receiveboth  &p!( thespecialemploymentbenefitsandspecialburdensassociatedwith '#* theirprofession.Cf._Harkins_v._Riverboat_ԀServs.,Inc.,385F.3d x)$, 1099,1103(7thCir.2004)(applying_rebuttable_Ԁpresumptionthat $+t&. someoneclassifiedas"seaman"forpurposesofotheremployment  statutesshouldberecognizedasa"seaman"under_FLSA_Ԁaswell). \  ` InitsamicusbriefinsupportofBostonHarbor,the X NationalAssociationofPassengerVesselOwners,Inc.attackssome   oftheDepartmentofLabor'sregulationsthemselves(mostnotably `  the20percentrulein29C.F.R.783.37),aswellasthe  \  interpretationofthoseregulationsproposedintheSecretary's   amicusbrief.Itassertsthattheanalysiscalledforbythe d  regulations,especiallyasinterpretedbytheSecretary,is `  unworkableinlightofordinaryindustrypracticesbecauseit   requiresfinegrainedassessmentsofthevarioustasksanemployee h performsaswellashowmuchtimeshedevotestoeachofhertasks. d See,e.g.,_Harkins_,385F.3dat1104.TheAssociationconcedes  thattheregulationsthemselves(asopposedtotheSecretary's l interpretationofthemintheamicusbrief)deservesomedeference, h butitnonethelessarguesinfavorofaffirmance.    II.  p  > ` Wereviewamotiontodismisson12(b)(6)groundsde 8!" novo.See,e.g.,Zimmermanv.CambridgeCreditCounselingCorp., "4$ 409F.3d473,475(1stCir.2005).Thestandardforgrantinga $& motiontodismissisanexactingone:"acomplaintshouldnotbe <&!( dismissedforfailuretostateaclaimunlessitappearsbeyond '8#* doubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportof )$, [her]claimwhichwouldentitle[her]torelief."_Conley_v. @+&. Gibson,355U.S.41,46(1957).Aswell,wemustassumethatall  wellpleadedallegationsinMcLaughlin'scomplaintaretrue,andwe \ mustindulgeallreasonableinferencesfromtheseallegationsin X herfavor.See,e.g.,_Centro_ԀMedicodel_Turabo_,Inc.v._Feliciano_   de_Melecio_,406F.3d1,5(1stCir.2005). `  _FLSA_ԀClaim󀀀  \   ` Becausethe_FLSA_Ԁitselfcontainsnodefinitionofa   "seaman,"# XXXX|3#XXX XԀtheDepartmentofLaborregulationsplayarole.Atthe d  outset,wedistinguishtheregulationsthemselvesfromthe `  Secretary'sinterpretationofthoseregulationsintheamicusbrief   filedwiththiscase# XXXXD#XXX X. h  ` Thereisnodisputeinthiscaseaboutthelevelof d deferenceowedtotheregulationsthemselves.Allpartiesagree  thatsomedeferenceisowedtheregulations.TheSecretaryof l Laborherselfcallsforapplicationofdeferenceunder_Skidmore_v. h Swift&Co.,323U.S.134(1944),andnomoredeferencethanthat.  # XXXXF#XXX XNooneinvolvedinthiscase,includingtheSecretary,iscalling p  forapplicationofthehigher,moreformaltypeofdeference !l" explainedinChevronU.S.A.,Inc.v.NaturalResourcesDefense "$ Council,Inc.,467U.S.837(1984). t$&  ` AsfortheSecretary'sinterpretationoftheregulations  &p!( inheramicusbrief,BostonHarborarguesthattheSecretary's '#* interpretationisentitledtonoweightatallbecauseitwas x)$, formulatedforthefirsttimeduringlitigationandisinconsistent $+t&. withtheagency'sownpriorapproach.See,e.g.,Bowenv.  GeorgetownUniv.Hosp.,488U.S.204,21213(1988)("Deferenceto \ whatappearstobenothingmorethananagency'sconvenient X litigatingpositionwouldbeentirelyinappropriate.");Allianceto   ProtectNantucketSound,Inc.v.UnitedStatesDep'toftheArmy, `  398F.3d105,112n.5(1stCir.2005)("[_D]eference_Ԁisnotdueto  \  interpretationsthatareposthocrationalizationsofferedbyan   agencyseekingtodefendpastagencyactionagainstattack..., d  ortointerpretationsthathavevariederraticallyovertime." `  (internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted)).# XXXXDH#XXX XԀWedonotnow   knowwhethertheSecretary'sinterpretationisnovelorinstead h consistentwiththeagency'slongstandingpractice.Since,aswe d explainbelow,interpretationoftheregulationsthemselvesis  prematureatthisstage,itislikewiseprematureforustodiscuss l theconsistencyoftheSecretary'sinterpretationwithpast h practice.   ` Bothparties,aswellastheSecretary,relyheavilyon p  theregulations:thecruxoftheirdisputeisabouthowthe !l" regulationsshouldbeinterpreted._Z #  3      _# XXXXN#XXX XԀThepartiesalsohave "$ subsidiarydisputes,describedabove,aboutthemeaningofthe  legislativehistoryandtherelationshipbetweentheuseofthe \ term"seaman"inthe_FLSA_Ԁandtheuseofthatterminother X statutes,suchastheJonesAct.Inthebriefs,thepartiesand   amiciappeartotreatthiscaseasthoughthecoreissuesinvolved `  canandoughttoberesolvedatthis12(b)(6)stage;thedistrict  \  courtalsofellintothistrap.    ` A# XXXXQ#XXX Xnyinterpretationofthe_FLSA_Ԁoritsregulations,at d  thisstageoftheproceedings,wouldbeerrorbecauseitwouldbe `  premature.Weneednotanddonotengageinanysuch   interpretation.Inparticular,wedeclinetheSecretary's h invitationforustoadoptherpreferredinterpretationofthe d regulationsnow,beforeanyfactualcontexthasbeendeveloped.# XXXXT#XXX X   ` Thestatute,theregulations,andthecaselaw,by l contrast,outlineanapproachthatisquitefactintensive.The h testaccordingtotheregulations"dependsuponthecharacterof  thework[anemployee]actuallyperforms,"andspecificallyupon p  whetherthatemployeeperformsservice"asmasterorsubjecttothe !l" authority,direction,andcontrolofthemasteraboardavessel, "$ servicewhichisrenderedprimarilyasanaidintheoperationof t$& suchvesselasameansoftransportation."29C.F.R.783.31,  &p!( 783.33.Inapplyingthistest,theregulationsmakedistinctions  thatarefactuallyintricate:theystate,forexample,that \ surgeonsandcooksonboardshipswillgenerallyfallwithinthe X exemption,butstevedoresorroust_abouts_Ԁwhoseprincipalduties   requirethemtoloadorunloadthevesselinportwillnotfall `  underit.Seeid.783.32,783.33.Thetestbecomesespecially  \  complicatedbythefactthatmanymaritimeindustryemployees   likeMcLaughlinperformmultipletasksduringthecourseofthe d  day.Insuchcases,theregulationsstatethattheexemptionwill `  notapplyifa"substantialamountofworkofadifferent   character"isperformedbytheemployeeatissue,29C.F.R. h 783.31;"substantial"isdefinedundertheregulationsas"more d than20percentofthetimeworkedbytheemployeeduringthe  workweek,"29_C.F.R._Ԁ783.37. l  ` TheSupremeCourt,inaJonesActcase,hasrecently h statedthattheinquiryintowhethersomeoneisa"seaman"isbound  tobeafactintensiveone:"Theinquiryintoseamanstatusisof p  necessityfactspecific;itwilldependonthenatureofthevessel !l" andtheemployee'spreciserelationtoit."McDermottInt'l,Inc. "$ v._Wilander_,498U.S.337,356(1991).# XXXXV#XXX XԀTheCourthassuggested t$& thatthe"seaman"exemptionunderthe_FLSA_Ԁisnoexceptiontothe  &p!( rulethatthedefinitionof"seaman"isfactintensive.SeeIcicle '#* _Seafoods_,Inc.v._Worthington_,475U.S.709,71314(1986).We x)$, madeasimilarobservationinouronlycasetoapplythe_FLSA_'s $+t&. "seaman"exemption.SeeWallingv.BayStateDredging&  ContractingCo.,149F.3d346,351(1stCir.1945)("Thelineof \ demarcationbetweenseamenandnonseamenisnotdistinctlydrawn, X andprobablycannotbe.Itdependsagooddealuponthefactsin   eachcase,especiallyuponthecharacteroftheworkthatis `  principallyengagedin.").  \   ` Finally,othercircuits,whetherheavilyguidedbythe   DepartmentofLaborregulationsornot,havealsotakenanapproach d  thatoftenturnsheavilyonfactualdistinctionsaboutthesortof `  worktheplaintiffisperforming.In_Harkins_,acasedecidedat   trialwhichinvolvedemployeeswhoworkedonagambling_riverboat_ h inChicago,thecourtnotedthatapplicationoftheexemptionwas d notsubjecttoanyobviousperserulesbutratherdepended  cruciallyonthekindsofdutiesthattheemployeesperformed: l 8 ` Ablackjackdealerdoesnotbecomeaseamanby h virtueofleavinghisjobat_Harrah_'sland > basedcasinoandtakingajobat_Harrah_'s  _riverboat_Ԁcasino,butlikewiseahelmsmandoes  notceasetobeaseamanbecausehetransfers p  toacasinoboatthatspendsmostofitstime F ! moored.Itwasforthejurytodecidewhether !l" thethreeplaintiffswhoseovertimeclaims !B# survivedtotrialweremorelikethehelmsman "$ thanliketheblackjackdealer.#%` x` x g385F.3dat1104;seealsoOwensv._Seariver_ԀMar.,Inc.,272F.3d J% ' 698,70104(5thCir.2001);Martinv._Bedell_,955F.2d1029,1036 &F") (5thCir.1992);_Worthington_v.Icicle_Seafoods_,Inc.,796F.2d (#+ 337,338(9thCir.1986);_Knudsen_v.Lee&Simmons,Inc.,163F.2d N*%- 95,9596(2dCir._1947).# XXXX`#XXX X_ +J'/ [OY  [ [   ` Unsurprisingly,then,courtshavegenerallydecidedthe  issueofwhetheragivenindividualfallswithintheexemption \ aftertrial,see,e.g.,Icicle_Seafoods_,475U.S.at710;_Harkins_, X 385F.3dat1101;Martin,955F.2dat1031,_Knudsen_,163F.2dat   95,oronsummaryjudgment,see,e.g.,Owens,272F.3dat700,but `  notonaRule12(b)(6)motion.NoneofthecasesthatBoston  \  Harborplacesweightupon,sofaraswecanascertain,weredecided   bya12(b)(6)motionbeforethefactualrecordhadevenbeen d  established.See_Harkins_,385F.3dat1101;Wallingv._Keansburg_ `  SteamboatCo.,162F.2d405,40608(3dCir.1947);Weaverv.   PittsburghS.S.Co.,153F.2d597,59899(6thCir.1946);Bay h StateDredging,149F.2dat34748(districtcourtdecidedon d stipulatedfacts);HelenaGlendaleFerryCo.v.Walling,132F.2d  616,618(8thCir.1942). l  ` Becausethelegalquestionpresentedinthiscaseisso h factintensive,andbecausetheapplicationoftheexemptionand  regulationstoplaintiff'sjobcannotbedeterminedfromthe p  severalsentencesofbarebonespleadings,wemustremandthecase !l" forfurtherfactfinding.See,e.g.,CavalierTel.,LLCv._Verizon_ "$ Va.,Inc.,330F.3d176,192(4thCir.2003)("necessarilyfact t$& bound"questionsarenormallynotdecidedbyamotiontodismiss);  &p!( _Krodel_v.Young,748F.2d701,712(D.C.Cir.1984)(same).Of '#* course,eveninthisfactspecificarea,dismissalunder12(b)(6) x)$, maysometimesbeappropriate,butonlywhereitiscrystalclear $+t&. underestablishedlawthattheplaintiffisa"seaman"underthe  _FLSA_.Thatisnotthiscase,andthedistrictcourterredin \ dismissingthiscaseatthe12(b)(6)stage.Notonlyisthereno X needtogofurther,butitwouldbeunwisetodoso.i #  4      # XXXXrm#XXX X   MassachusettsStateLawClaim `   ` TheMassachusettsstateovertimestatute,Mass.Gen.Laws  \  ch.151,1A,containsanexemptionfor"anyemployeewhois   employedasaseaman,"thususingessentiallyidenticallanguage# XXXXx#XXX XԀ d  asthe_FLSA_.Id.1A(10).Therearenocasesconstruingthe `  Massachusettsexemption.Thepartiesagreeintheirbriefs,   though,thatakeyfactorisinterpretingtheMassachusettsstatute h istheinterpretationofanalogousfederallaw.See_Goodrow_v. d LaneBryant,Inc.,732N.E.2d289,294(Mass.2000)._d #  5      _# XXXXoz#XXX XԀ  InterpretationoftheMassachusetts"seaman"exemptionmaydepend l heavilyoninterpretationofthe_FLSA_'s"seaman"exemption.Since, h aswehaveexplained,interpretationofthe_FLSA_Ԁispremature,the  districtcourt'sdismissaloftheMassachusettsstatelawclaim  mustlikewisebevacated,andtheclaimmustberemandedfor \ furtherconsideration. X   III.      ` ThedistrictcourtorderdismissingMcLaughlin's |  complaintis reversed ,thejudgmentis vacated ,andthecaseis  ( x  remanded forfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. @  CostsareawardedtoMcLaughlin.   # XXXX}#(concurrencefollows)XXX X  x+&. ^b=XXdcXXd= ` # XXXX5#LIPEZ,CircuitJudge,concurring .Iagreewiththe  majoritythatmorefactualdevelopmentisneededbeforethemerits x ofMcLaughlin'sclaimcanbeadjudicated.Thedistrictcourterred $t inconcludingotherwise.However,thedistrictcourtgrantedthe   motiontodismissinresponsetospecificargumentsmadebyBoston |  Harbor.Indeed,itsaidthatitwasgrantingthemotion ( x   substantiallyforthereasonsadvancedinthedefendantspapers. $  Iwishtoexplainwhy,inmyview,thosespecificreasonsdidnot   justifythedistrictcourtsruling. ,|    I.  ( ۄ  ` BostonHarbormadethreeargumentsinthedistrictcourt  insupportofitsmotiontodismiss.First,citingWallingv.Bay L StateDredgingCo.,149F.2d346(1stCir.1945),BostonHarbor H arguedthatthe_FLSA_slegislativehistoryshowedthattheterm  "seaman"referred"solelytowatertransportationworkers."e #  1      In P BostonHarborsview,McLaughlin'sdutiesasasocalled"_deckhand_" L onacommuterferrymakehera"watertransportationworker"and  thusnotentitledtoovertimepay.Second,BostonHarborcited \ regulationsissuedbytheDepartmentofLaboronthescopeand X meaningoftheseamanexemption.See29C.F.R.pt.783   ("ApplicationoftheFairLaborStandardsActtoemployeesemployed `  asseamen").BostonHarborclaimedthatthoseregulationscited  \  caselawexcludingfromovertimepay allpersonnelemployedbythe   owneronboardferries."SeeWallingv._Keansburg_ԀSteamboatCo., d  162F.2d405(3dCir.1947);HelenaGlendaleFerryCo.v.Walling, `  132F.2d616(8thCir.1942).BostonHarbornoted,too,thatthe   regulationssaythat"Congressintendedtoexempt...only h workersperformingwatertransportationservices."29C.F.R. d 783.29(a).Thirdandfinally,notingthatitcouldnotfindany  reportedcasesinwhich_deckhands_Ԁoncommuterferrieswereentitled l toovertimepayunderthe_FLSA_,BostonHarborinterpretedthat h absenceofcaselawasproofthatMcLaughlin'sclaimwaslegally  unprecedentedandbaseless.Onappeal,BostonHarboressentially p  renewedthesearguments. !l"   II.  "$ 2 ` AsonecanseefromthesummaryofBostonHarbors $& arguments,theydrawheavilyonthe_FLSA_slegislativehistoryand <&!( theDepartmentofLaborsregulationsinterpretingthescopeand '8#*  meaningoftheseamanexemption.Therefore,beforeaddressing )$, BostonHarborsspecificarguments,Iwishtodiscussbrieflythat  legislativehistoryandtheDepartmentsregulations. \  A.TheFairLaborStandardsActandthe seamanexemption  X  ` Anearlydraftofthebillthatbecamethe_FLSA_Ԁdidnot   excludeseamenfromitsovertimeprovisions.BayStateDredging, |  149F.2dat349.Thechiefproponentsoftheexclusionwereseamen ( x  themselveswhoaskedCongresstobeexcludedspecifically,two $  seamen'sunions,theSailors'UnionofthePacificandtheNational   MaritimeUnion.Professingthemselveshappywiththeextensive ,|  regulatoryschemealreadyinplaceforseamen,theunionsfeared (  unintendedconsequencesoffurtherCongressionaltinkering._f #  2      _ԀFor  example,therepresentativeoftheSailors'UnionofthePacific  testified: \  Ouruniondoesnotliketoseeanyfurtheroradditional X legislationenactedtocoveragroupofworkersalready . sowellcovered,whichmighttendtocreatesome   confusioninlaborrelations,whicharenowontheroad   topracticalandsuccessfuloperation.Therefore,Iask `  onbehalfoftheSailors'UnionofthePacific,thatthe 6   billbesowrittenastoexcludetheseamenfromthe  \  operationoftheprovisionsofthebill.  2  ΔܔJointhearingsonS.2475andH.R.7200beforetheSen.Comm.on   Educ.andLaborandHouseComm.onLabor,75thCong.545(quotedin :  BayStateDredging,149F.2dat349).Similarly,theNational 6 MaritimeUnion'srepresentativeexplainedhisunderstanding  thatthewayhasbeenleftopenfortheproposedLabor > StandardsBoard[createdbythe_FLSA_]tohave d jurisdictionoverthoseclassesofworkerswhoare : engagedintransportation.Whilethismaynothavean  unfavorableeffectupontheworkersengagedin  transportationbywater,wefeelthatitmayconflict l withthelawsnowineffectregardingthejurisdictionof B thegovernmentmachinerynowsetuptohandlethose h problems. >  ` ....  ....[_W]e_Ԁfeelthatforthepresenttimethatthe  [U.S.MaritimeCommissions]jurisdictionshouldnotbe p  hamperedorimpairedbyanylegislationthatwouldbe F ! conflicting. !l" ݘJointhearingsonS.2475andH.R.7200beforetheSen.Comm.on "$ Educ.andLaborandHouseComm.onLabor,75thCong.545(quotedin t$& BayStateDredging,149F.2dat349).  &p!(  ` ThishistorysuggeststhatCongressexcludedseamanfrom '#* the_FLSA_'sovertimeprotectionsnotbecauseofasubstantivepolicy x)$, judgmentaboutthewisdomofpayingthemovertime,butprimarily $+t&. forproceduralreasonsi.e.,toavoidjurisdictionalconflict.   SeamenwereexemptedfromoperationoftheFairLaborStandards \ Actof1938soastoavoidconflictofjurisdictionandconfusion X oflaborrelations."_Keansburg_ԀSteamboatCo.,162F.2dat408;see   alsoWeaverv.PittsburghSteamshipCo.,153F.2d597,599600(6th `  Cir.1946)("OntheflooroftheSenateitwasexplainedbySenator  \  Blackg #  3      ׀that,withrespecttoexemptions,ithadbeenthepolicyof   theCommitteetowritethebillsoasnottoconflictwiththe d  regulationsofhoursandwageswhengiventoothergovernmental `  agencies....").     ` Althoughthedefinitionof"seaman"underthe_FLSA_Ԁhas h generatedanumberofcourtdecisionsovertheyears,allthat d attentionhasnotproducedmuchinthewayofclearrules._h #  4      _ԀAswe  observedin1945:"Thelineofdemarcationbetweenseamanandnon l seamanisnotdistinctlydrawn,andprobablycannotbe.Itdepends h agooddealuponthefactsineachcase,especiallyuponthe   characteroftheworkthatisprincipallyengagedin."BayState p  Dredging,149F.2dat351.Almostsixtyyearslater,thosewords  arestillapt. \    0 `  B.TheLaborDepartmentsregulationsX` (#` (#   ` Soonafterthe_FLSA_'senactmentintolaw,theSecretary   ofLabor,FrancesPerkins,issuedInterpretiveBulletinNo.11, |  whichprovidedtheLaborDepartment'sviewsonhowtheseaman ( x  exemptionshouldbeinterpreted.TheheartoftheLabor $  Department'sinterpretationthesocalled"aidtotransportation"   testderivesfromthatinterpretivebulletin,whichstatesinpart ,|  thatan ( [_e]mployee_Ԁwillordinarilyberegardedas'employedasa  seaman'ifheperforms,asmasterorsubjecttothe Z authority,direction,andcontrolofthemasteraboarda 0 vessel,servicewhichisrenderedprimarilyasanaidin V operationofsuchvesselasameansoftransportation, , providedheperformsnosubstantialamountofworkofa  differentcharacter.  *8Thosewordsnowappearunchangedat29C.F.R.783.31("Criteria 4 foremployment'asaseaman'"),alongwithsomeaddedcitationsto 0 legislativehistoryandcaselaw.In1948,theLaborDepartment   madeonechange,decidingthatanemployeeperformsa"substantial 8!" amountofworkofadifferentcharacter"ifthatdifferentwork "4$ occupiesmorethan20percentofhistimeduringaworkweek.See $& 29C.F.R.783.37.Since1948,thepartiesagreethattherehave <&!( beennosubstantivechangestotheseinterpretiveregulations._j #  5      _ '8#*  ` TheLaborDepartmentsregulationsgivesomecontentto  thevagueconceptofbeing"employedasaseaman"bystressingthe \ characteroftheworkperformedbytheemployee.Weechoedthat X approachinBayStateDredging,wherewedescribedthecharacter   ofaseamansworkas"essentiallymaritime."Specifically,we `  saidthat"[_w]hether_Ԁaworkerisaseaman,asthetermiscommonly  \  used,dependsonthecharacterofhisduties.Iftheyare   essentiallymaritimeheisaseaman.Otherwiseheremainsa d  landsman."149F.3d349;seealso_Harkins_,385F.3dat1102(To `  qualifyasaseaman,"theemployeemustdomaritimetypework..   ..")(emphasisadded). h  ` Theregulationsofferafewexamplesofworkerswho d typicallywouldorwouldnotmeettheDepartments"aidto  transportation"test.So,forexample,wereadthat"[_t]he_Ԁterm l 'seaman'includesmembersofthecrewsuchassailors,engineers, h radiooperators,firemen,pursers,surgeons,cooks,andstewards,  iftheirserviceisoftypedescribedin783.31."Id.783.32.  Ontheotherhand,theterm"seaman"typicallydoesnotincludethe \ followingtypesofworkers:concessionairesandtheiremployees X aboardavessel,aswellasdredgeworkers,stevedores,and   roustabouts.Id.783.33.Regardlessoftheselistsofjob `  titles,whetheraworkeris"employedasaseaman"ultimately  \  dependson"thecharacteroftheworkheactuallyperformsandnot   onwhatitiscalledortheplacewhereitisperformed."Id. d   ` TheLaborDepartment'sdescriptioninitsregulationsof `  theoriginoftheseamanexemptionalsocomportswiththehistory   recitedinBayStateDredging.See29C.F.R.783.29("Adoption h oftheexemptionintheoriginal1938Act").Accordingtothat d description,Congressexcludedseamenfromthe_FLSA_'sovertime  provisionstoavoidjurisdictionaloverlapwithadmiraltylaw.In l doingso,Congressintendedtogivetheterm"seaman"its"commonly h acceptedmeaning,namely,onewhoisaboardavesselnecessarily  andprimarilyinaidofitsnavigation."Id.783.29(c).Atthe p  sametime,however,thatordinarymeaning"isgovernedbythe !l" contextinwhichitisusedandthepurposeofthestatuteinwhich "$ itisfound."Consequently,inthecontextofaremedialstatute t$& likethe_FLSA_,"givingaliberalinterpretationofthemeaningof  &p!( theterm'seaman'...wouldfrustrateratherthanaccomplishthe '#* legislativepurpose"byexcludingtoomanyworkersfromthe_FLSA_'s x)$, protectiveambit.Id. $+t&.    III.   ` Iturnnowtoanevaluationofthethreeargumentsthat x convincedthedistrictcourtthatMcLaughlinscomplaintwas $t insufficientasamatteroflaw.    A."Watertransportationworkers"  |   ` Inthedistrictcourtandhere,BostonHarborarguesthat D   thephrase"watertransportationworker"decidesthiscasenow @  becauseMcLaughlin,accordingtoherownallegations,isa"water   transportationworker."ThatphraseappearsonceinBayState H  Dredging.See149F.2dat350.Avariationofthephrasealso D appearsintheLaborDepartment'sregulations.See29C.F.R.  783.29(a)(the"generalpatternofthelegislativehistory"shows L thatCongressintendedtoexclude"workersperformingwater H transportationservices"fromthe_FLSA_'sovertimeprovisions).  BostonHarborasks,"IfPlaintiffisnotawatertransportation P employee,whatisshe?" L  ` BostonHarbormisconceivesthephrase'simportancetothe   analysisfortworeasons.First,BostonHarborsimplytakesthe T!" phraseoutofcontext.InBayStateDredging,wesaidthatitwas #P$ "apparentthatinthehearingboth[theunionrepresentative]and $& [SenatorBlack]usedtheterm'seamen'withitscommonmeaning, X&!( referringsolelytowatertransportationworkers."149F.2dat (T#* 350.ItisnotclearwhyBostonHarborfindstheterm"water )%, transportationworker"anymoreusefulthantheterm"seaman" \+&. itself,whichatleasthasthevirtueofbeingthetermthat  Congresschosetouseinthestatute.Consonantwiththatfact, \ thefocusofouranalysisinBayStateDredgingremainedonthe X wordsofthestatute:whetheranemployeewas"employedasa   seaman."29U.S.C.213(b)(6).Ourfocusmustremainthesamein `  thiscase.  \   ` Second,BostonHarborexaggeratesthephrase'simportance   whenitclaimsthat"courtshaveconsistentlydefinedtheterm d  'seamen'[sic]asawatertransportationworker."BostonHarbor `  doesnotciteanycasesforthatproposition(besides,ofcourse,   BayStateDredging),andIcouldnotfindanycasestosupportthat h claim.Indeed,farfromBostonHarbor'srepresentationthatcourts d haveusedthephrase"consistently,"thephrasehasnotappearedin  anyfederalcasesinceBayStateDredgingin1945.k #  6       l  ` Ultimately,BostonHarbor'srelianceonthisphraseisa h distractionfromtheinescapablyfactspecificnatureoftheseaman  inquiry: p  [_T]he_Ԁwordsoftheexemptionare:"Employeesemployedas !l" seamen".Theitalicizedwordsmeansomething;theyare !B# notmeretautology.Theywarnustolooktowhatthe "$ employeesdo,andnottorestonamerematterofaname, #% ortheplaceoftheirwork....[_W]hat_Ԁhedoesis t$& expresslymadethetestofexclusion. J% ' D6RMitchellv._Stinson_,217F.2d210,215(1stCir.1954)(quoting &F") Wallingv.W.D._Haden_ԀCo.,153F.2d196,199(5thCir.1946)).If (#+ McLaughlin'sdutiesare"essentiallymaritime,"thensheisa  seaman.BayStateDredging,149F.2dat349.Basedsolelyonthe \ allegationsinhercomplaint,thereisatleastreasontoquestion X whetherMcLaughlinqualifiesasaseaman.    ` Moreover,theSupremeCourthascautionedthat,because `  ofthe_FLSA_'s"remedialandhumanitarian"purposes,thestatute  \  "mustnotbeinterpretedorappliedinanarrow,grudgingmanner."   Tenn.Coal,Iron&R.Co.v._Muscoda_ԀLocalNo.123,321U.S.590, d  597(1944).Exemptionsfromthedutiesimposedbythe_FLSA_Ԁon `  employersaretobe"narrowlyconstruedagainsttheemployers   seekingtoassertthemandtheirapplicationlimitedtothose h establishmentsplainlyandunmistakablywithintheirtermsand d spirit."Arnoldv.Ben_Kanowsky_,Inc.,361U.S.388,392(1960);  seealsoReichv.NewspapersofNewEng.,Inc.,44F.3d1060,1070 l (1stCir.1995)(quotingArnold).McLaughlin'sdutiesasalleged h inhercomplaintwerenotsoobviouslymaritimeinnaturethatshe  was"plainlyandunmistakably"ineligibleforovertimepay. p  Arnold,361U.S.at392. !l"  ` Tobesure,intheJonesAct,whichallowsnegligence "$ suitstobebroughtagainstshipownersby"[_a]ny_Ԁseaman"injured t$& "inthecourseofhisemployment,"46U.S.C.App.688(a),the  &p!( term"seaman"hasbeendefinedbroadly.Wehaveacknowledgedthis '#* divergencebefore:"[_T]he_Ԁterm'seamen,'usedinvariousActs,"is x)$, a"flexibleterm[],themeaningofwhichdependsonthe $+t&. circumstancesinwhich[it]isusedandthepurposeofthe  particularstatuteinwhich[it]occurs."BayStateDredging,149 \ F.2dat351;seealso_Harkins_,385F.3dat1102("[_D]ecisions_ X interpretingtheterm'seaman'inotherstatutesdonotnecessarily   controlitsmeaninginthe_FLSA_."). `   ` Indeed,thedivergentmeaningsof"seaman"makesense  \  whenoneconsidersthedifferentrolesplayedbytheterminthe   twostatutes,bothofwhichareremedialinnature.IntheJones d  Act,workersdefinedas"seamen"areincludedinthestatute's `  protections,whileinthe_FLSA_Ԁseamenareexcludedfromovertime   pay.Therefore,incontext,theexpansivedefinitionof"seaman" h furtherstheJonesAct'spurposes.Here,bycontrast,anexpansive d definitionof"seaman"informedsolelybytheunilluminatingphrase  "watertransportationworker"wouldundercutthe_FLSA_'spurposes._l #  7      _ l  B.TheLaborDepartment's"aidtotransportation"test    ` BostonHarbormaintainsthattheLaborDepartment's x regulations,includingtheirreferenceto"workersperformingwater $t transportationservices,"29C.F.R.783.29(a),justifydismissing   McLaughlin'sclaim.Toreiterate,theLaborDepartment'stest |  providesthat"[_a]n_Ԁemployeewillordinarilyberegardedas ( x  'employedasaseaman'ifheperforms...subjecttothe $  authority...ofthemasteraboardavessel,servicewhichis   renderedprimarilyasanaidinoperationofsuchvesselasameans ,|  oftransportation."29C.F.R.783.31. (  ` BostonHarboressentiallysaysthattheDepartment's  test,likethestatutoryterm"seaman"andBayStateDredging's 0 phrase"watertransportationworker,"mustbereadbroadly. , AlthoughMcLaughlindidnotperformanydutiesrelatedtothe  operationoftheferryitself,likenavigationorsteering,shedid 4 performvariousdutiesrelatedtothepassengersthattheferry 0 transports.m #  8      ׀Therefore,accordingtoBostonHarbor,byaidingthe   passengersandthuscontributingtothevessel'soverallmission, 8!" McLaughlinrenderedserviceasan"aidin"theoperationofthe  vesselasameansoftransportation.Atonepoint,BostonHarbor \ evenassertsthat"[_b]y_Ԁdefinition,a_deckhand_Ԁonacommuterboat X isprovidingserviceintheoperationofavesselasameansof   transportation"(emphasisadded).Butthatdefinitionwould `  excludeemployeesfromovertimepaybasedsolelyontheirplaceof  \  work,anapproachrejectedbytheDepartment.See29C.F.R.   783.33(statusasaseamandoesnotdependon"theplacewhere[the d  work]isperformed"). `   ` ItisimportanttonotethattheDepartment'srejection   ofBostonHarbor'spositioninitsmotiontodismiss,andits h objectiontothecourt'srulinggrantingthatmotion,isbasedon d theexplicitlanguageoftheDepartment'sregulations,notan  interpretationoftheregulations.Inthoseregulations,the l Departmentstatesthatacourtshouldlooktotheworkactually h performed,"notonwhatitiscalledortheplacewhereitis  performed."29C.F.R.783.33.n #  9      ׀Weechoedthatprinciple p  ourselvesinBayStateDredging.BostonHarborsreadingofthe  exemptionsimplydoesnotcomportwiththefactsensitiveapproach \ requiredbytheDepartment'sregulations._oj #  10      _ X  C.Lackofreportedcases     ` Thirdandfinally,BostonHarborsaidthatitcouldnot |  findanyreportedcasesinwhich_deckhands_Ԁoncommuterferrieswere ( x  heldtobeentitledtoovertimeunderthe_FLSA_.Thisargumentis $  anotherreflectionofBostonHarbor'sunpersuasivecategorical  approachtothiscase.Speakingof"_deckhands_"ingeneraltermsis \ nothelpful.Moretothepoint,Icouldfindnocasessupporting X thebroadpositionofBostonHarborthatany_deckhand_Ԁonaferry,   irrespectiveofthenatureofthe_deckhand_swork,qualifiesasa `  seamanunderthe_FLSA_.  \     IV.     ` BothourprecedentandtheLaborDepartmentsregulations   makeclearthatneitherjobtitlesnorthelocusoftheworkare ,|  determinativeinthiscase.Thefocusmustbeonthenatureofthe ( dutiesactuallyperformed:whethertheyaremaritimeornon  maritime.Importantly,"maritime"inthiscontextdoesnotsimply 0 mean"takesplaceonthewater."Ifso,dredgeworkerslikethe , onesinBayStateDredgingwouldbeseamenandthusineligiblefor  overtimepay.Rather,inthelanguageoftheDepartments 4 regulation,maritimemeans"servicewhichisrenderedprimarilyas 0 anaidintheoperationofsuchvesselasameansof   transportation."29C.F.R.783.31. 8!"  ` McLaughlinsserviceontheferrymayormaynotfall "4$ withinthatregulation.Giventhatuncertainty,McLaughlinshould $& haveanopportunitytodevelophercasefactuallyandthereby <&!( explaintheprecisecontextofherduties.Afterall,aswehave '8#* said,the"lineofdemarcationbetweenseamenandnonseamenisnot )$, distinctlydrawn,andprobablycannotbe.Itdependsagooddeal @+&. uponthefactsineachcase,especiallyuponthecharacterofwork  thatisprincipallyengagedin."BayStateDredging,149F.3dat \ 351.Therefore,thedistrictcourterredindismissing X McLaughlinscomplaintonthebasisofBostonHarborsflawedlegal   arguments.