Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Schwalb: Maintaining Equipment Essential to Loading Cargo Was Maritime Employment

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 21, 2026 · Updated October 29, 2026

Decision: Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Schwalb, 493 U.S. 40 (1989).

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb, decided November 28, 1989, consolidated cases involving workers who maintained or cleaned coal-loading equipment at Virginia terminals. The question was whether their work counted as maritime employment under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, even though they did not personally handle cargo.

Integral loading work satisfied maritime status

Employees need not touch cargo personally when their regular duties are essential to keeping the loading process operating.

Maintenance and cleanup were not merely incidental

One worker repaired a device needed to dump coal cars; loading stopped during the repair. Other workers removed spilled coal that could clog rollers or conveyors. Keeping that equipment operating was integral to loading ships. The workers’ other ordinary janitorial duties did not erase the maritime character of this essential maintenance. Schwalb, 493 U.S. at 43, 47–48.

Coverage made the Longshore remedy exclusive

For these covered railroad employees, the Longshore remedy displaced the negligence claims they asserted under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Schwalb, 493 U.S. at 42–45.

Situs and present duties still require proof

Schwalb does not cover every repair or janitorial employee near a waterfront. Facility function, regular tasks, injury location, exclusions, and current circuit law remain material.

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Marshall and O’Connor, joined the Court but emphasized continuous coverage. A worker who spends part of the job maintaining loading equipment should not walk in and out of Longshore coverage whenever the assigned task changes. In his reading of the Court’s existing cases, such a worker could remain covered while doing other work at the moment of injury. The job’s maritime responsibilities therefore mattered beyond a snapshot of the accident. Schwalb, 493 U.S. at 49–50 (Blackmun, J., concurring).

Justice Stevens concurred only in the judgment. Although he favored a narrower direct-involvement reading of the statute, he respected the uniform federal appellate decisions extending status to repair and maintenance workers. That explanation distinguished his reason for reaching the result from the Court’s own statutory reasoning. Schwalb, 493 U.S. at 50–51 (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment).

Key takeaways

• Map the equipment’s role in vessel loading or unloading.
• Explain whether operations stop without the employee’s work.
• Establish the statutory waterfront situs independently.
• Analyze exclusivity before pursuing a competing negligence remedy.